Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

So Donnie Douchebag called the Whitehouse a "dump." I'm not upset, though. He would know a dump when he sees one since he's made his money building them.

Maybe he's going to remodel it, and add that Trump flair that got him a few hundred electoral votes?

On the upside, there's a chance that the Trump house may not use slave labour, so that's an improvement on the original.

No, just undocumented workers.

[Flagg]

Suffice to say that I think we're better off in an argument where it's at least possible to say some nice things about members of the opposing party who cross the aisle on an issue of great importance to our own side, without having to load it down with three paragraphs of qualifications about how they're still terrible people. It leads to meanness and a frame of mind in which "the enemy" is viewed with monolithic dehumanizing hatred... at which point that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The problem in this case is that John McCain has been a mean, erratic, and lying dickhead for his entire career. He's openly mocked his fellow senators on the senate floor. He gave us Sarah Palin, which in my opinion is why we have the truly extreme elements in the Republican Party and ended up with Trump. He joked, in public, about "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb(ing) Iran". The media driven myth that he's a "maverick" who gives "straight talk" baffles the shit out of me because if you look at his actual record and the truly shitty things he's said and done, you cannot come to any other conclusion but that he's a fucking asshole.

So yeah, great, thanks for casting a vote that doesn't rob 15 million people of their healthcare. Now resign, go home, and die.

[Gandalf]

Washington (CNN) - President Donald Trump boasted about his election victory, pressured his Mexican counterpart to remain quiet about a border wall and called New Hampshire a "drug-infested den" in a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, according to a transcript of the conversation revealed on Thursday by The Washington Post.

The transcript of Trump's conversation with Mexico's leader was one of two phone calls revealed on Thursday, which provide a rare glimpse into the private conversations of a new US president testing his negotiating powers on foreign counterparts.

The January 27 phone call with Peña Nieto came seven days after Trump entered office. In it, he focused mainly on issues of trade and immigration, with contentious moments coming in his insistence that Mexico will eventually pay for a wall along with US southern border. Peña Nieto has insisted publicly his country will not pay for the wall's construction, but Trump demanded he cease making that claim.

"You cannot say that to the press," Trump said on the phone call. "The press is going to go with that and I cannot live with that. You cannot say that to the press because I cannot negotiate under those circumstances."

On the same day, Trump carried out a phone conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which grew sour when Trump rejected an agreement to take in refugees. The transcript shows Trump growing progressively more agitated, eventually telling his Australian counterpart the call was the most irksome of the day.

"I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day," Trump told Turnbull. "(Russian President Vladimir) Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous."

Trump later ended the phone call abruptly.

The two conversations show a President still working through the complicated nature of bilateral US relationships, often suggesting to his counterparts that he had campaign promises to fulfill in his early days in the White House.

New Hampshire a 'drug-infested den'

Over the course of their conversation, Trump referred to his Mexican counterpart by his first name, and routinely praised his eloquence. He repeatedly raised his electoral victory, insisting he had a mandate to crack down on illegal immigration and take on drug trafficking, according to the published transcript.

"I won with a large percentage of Hispanic voters. I understand the community and they understand me, and I have a great respect for the Mexican people."

He ascribed his win in New Hampshire's presidential primary to a tough-on-crime stance, calling the state a "drug-infested den."

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire, called Trump's comments "disgusting" on Twitter.

Turnbull call focused on refugees

His call with Turnbull also centered on Trump's campaign vows, this time his pledge to bar refugees from entering the United States. He said an Obama-era agreement to accept 1,250 refugees would open him up to political criticism.
"Boy that will make us look awfully bad," Trump said. "Here I am calling for a ban where I am not letting anybody in and we take 2,000 people."

Later, he went even further, telling the Australian prime minister that accepting the refugees would "kill me."

"I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country," he said.

The transcript confirms reports from earlier this year that Trump and Turnbull held a contentious phone call that Trump ended abruptly.

Trump himself sought to downplay the reports when he appeared with Turnbull at an event in New York in May.

"We had a great telephone call. You guys exaggerated that call," Trump said. "That was a big exaggeration. We're not babies. That was a little bit of fake news."

Well that's just comedy gold right there. Great job America!

For further comedy, here is the complete transcript of the call between Trump and Trumble Turnbull.

[Dragon Angel]

The thing to remember here is that republicans or what ever major political party isn't made up of demons or elemental embodiments of evil but rather normal human beings with all the flaws and virtues that come with it, so republicans are physically capable of intentionally doing good things and we shouldn't forget that. (I'm using them as they're the subject of discussion here, personally I don't care much of either the major american parties, but then the uninentional comedy that is US internal politics doesn't effect me much).

With democracy you have to accept that sometimes you hear things you don't like but a democracy that allows only things that *insert group here* wants to hear is a democracy in name only and the Twitter war Trump is having with the press shows that they're not just mouthpiece of the GOP regardless of what some may claim to justify their bloodlust.

I dunno. When a person makes mistakes, that is just being human. When a person makes mistakes while being uninformed, that is just being in ignorance as a human. When a person makes mistakes while being informed, that starts to lead my judgement of them into "stupefying fool", but ultimately, it is still human. When a person continues to make mistakes with incontrovertible information at hand, and even huge segments of their own base deeply against their policy ideas, now that causes me to believe they are careless and too dumb to breathe if their decisions only affect themselves, or deliberately evil if their decisions affect masses for their own gain.

Let those who are affected by these policies feel their rage without lecturing them into guilt trips because after all, these people deliberately exploiting others only have "flaws".

I have no idea where that second paragraph came from so I'm not touching it.

[Lord Revan]

The thing to remember here is that republicans or what ever major political party isn't made up of demons or elemental embodiments of evil but rather normal human beings with all the flaws and virtues that come with it, so republicans are physically capable of intentionally doing good things and we shouldn't forget that. (I'm using them as they're the subject of discussion here, personally I don't care much of either the major american parties, but then the uninentional comedy that is US internal politics doesn't effect me much).

With democracy you have to accept that sometimes you hear things you don't like but a democracy that allows only things that *insert group here* wants to hear is a democracy in name only and the Twitter war Trump is having with the press shows that they're not just mouthpiece of the GOP regardless of what some may claim to justify their bloodlust.

I dunno. When a person makes mistakes, that is just being human. When a person makes mistakes while being uninformed, that is just being in ignorance as a human. When a person makes mistakes while being informed, that starts to lead my judgement of them into "stupefying fool", but ultimately, it is still human. When a person continues to make mistakes with incontrovertible information at hand, and even huge segments of their own base deeply against their policy ideas, now that causes me to believe they are careless and too dumb to breathe if their decisions only affect themselves, or deliberately evil if their decisions affect masses for their own gain.

Let those who are affected by these policies feel their rage without lecturing them into guilt trips because after all, these people deliberately exploiting others only have "flaws".

I have no idea where that second paragraph came from so I'm not touching it.

you got to remember that people are experts at lying especially to themselves, I dout any member of the GOP is doing intentionally evil for the sake of doing evil, rather they've they decived themselves into thinking what they're doing is for the greater good aka don't mistake stupidity for malice. You know the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" it very much applies here.

the second paragraph refers to the all too common response of essentially "blood for the blood god!" everytime any member of the GOP says something objectionble.

[Thanas]

A Grand Jury is going to be convened by Robert Mueller. Link.

[Flagg]

A Grand Jury is going to be convened by Robert Mueller. Link.

I see 2 outcomes if the White House Roach actually gets indicted:

1) He signs over temporary Presidential authority (it happens every time a POTUS is put under anesthesia for a procedure, so it's not even close to unprecedented and Bush did it several times and Obama may have done it as well, but I don't recall. In any case it's perfectly legal.) to Pence who then pardons him for everything he may or may not have done prior to the pardon. The only issue with this is that it could be considered a criminal conspiracy, but the power of the President (or acting president) to issue pardons is clearly laid out in the US Constitution and is unassailable.

2) He fights it in court claiming that as POTUS he is immune from prosecution (by anyone other than Congress, and I've stated before that I don't believe even a huge Democratic win in both houses is any guarantee of impeachment for purely political reasons) while POTUS and the legal fight and injunctions may last long enough for him to avoid the charges until he loses in 2020 or if he wins, well into his second term. He may also win that case.

[Elheru Aran]

More likely? Mueller won't indict the President directly. He'll go to the House and lay out everything, and put the onus on them to do something about it. And from the way things have been looking, and how long he's taking to investigate everything... he's going to have dirt. Major dirt. Enough perhaps to tip the possibly-moderate-ish Republican Congressmen over enough for a majority to vote to impeach.

And after the impeachment, that's what the grand jury is for. Pence might be a tool (in both senses of the word) but he's not enough of an idiot to try pardoning Trump if Cheeto Hitler gets impeached.

[Flagg]

More likely? Mueller won't indict the President directly. He'll go to the House and lay out everything, and put the onus on them to do something about it. And from the way things have been looking, and how long he's taking to investigate everything... he's going to have dirt. Major dirt. Enough perhaps to tip the possibly-moderate-ish Republican Congressmen over enough for a majority to vote to impeach.

And after the impeachment, that's what the grand jury is for. Pence might be a tool (in both senses of the word) but he's not enough of an idiot to try pardoning Trump if Cheeto Hitler gets impeached.

It depends on how much dirt The White House Roach has on Pence, I'd think. But I don't think there are enough moderate Republicans in the House to get the votes, TBH. At least not moderate enough that Eddie Munster's demands for obedience aren't heeded. That said, I hope I'm wrong. If you have a majority Republican House that votes to impeach a Republican president... it would be grand. Like seeing warships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... *


*(I'm sure I probably massacred that quote, but fuck it. )

[Lost Soal]

A Grand Jury is going to be convened by Robert Mueller. Link.

2) He fights it in court claiming that as POTUS he is immune from prosecution (by anyone other than Congress, and I've stated before that I don't believe even a huge Democratic win in both houses is any guarantee of impeachment for purely political reasons) while POTUS and the legal fight and injunctions may last long enough for him to avoid the charges until he loses in 2020 or if he wins, well into his second term. He may also win that case.

He is only immune for stuff done while President, anything before then he can still be convicted of. That's why the Trump University case would have kept going if he hadn't settled.

[Flagg]

A Grand Jury is going to be convened by Robert Mueller. Link.

2) He fights it in court claiming that as POTUS he is immune from prosecution (by anyone other than Congress, and I've stated before that I don't believe even a huge Democratic win in both houses is any guarantee of impeachment for purely political reasons) while POTUS and the legal fight and injunctions may last long enough for him to avoid the charges until he loses in 2020 or if he wins, well into his second term. He may also win that case.

He is only immune for stuff done while President, anything before then he can still be convicted of. That's why the Trump University case would have kept going if he hadn't settled.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I was in my mid-late teens when Clinton was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment and it was my understanding that even though it was done while he was Governor of flyover state 3-31B (I'm sorry, I can't help it. ) he had been declared immune until after his Presidency. But it's been awhile.

[Simon_Jester]

I think a significant number of Republicans are going to be looking at Trump's approval ratings* and wondering if voting to impeach him is likely to be better, or worse, for their election prospects than continuing to stonewall. If the 2018 congressional elections become a referendum on Trump, a fair number of Republicans could be in for a fight. He has massive personal unpopularity among large demographics that have a strong incentive to vote... and he doesn't even have much personal popularity even among core Republican demographics, except insofar as he's "our man in the White House."

But basically, if you're a Republican congressman, there are a whole lot of people who might be motivated to vote against you because they hate Trump, and very few people who will be motivated to vote FOR you because they love Trump. Impeachment proceedings or the prospect thereof will tend to amplify this effect.
_________________________

*(Which are sub-40% even now, WITHOUT a massive official FBI-compiled dossier of carefully sourced evidence indicating that he's a Russian agent or whatever)

[Flagg]

I think a significant number of Republicans are going to be looking at Trump's approval ratings* and wondering if voting to impeach him is likely to be better, or worse, for their election prospects than continuing to stonewall. If the 2018 congressional elections become a referendum on Trump, a fair number of Republicans could be in for a fight. He has massive personal unpopularity among large demographics that have a strong incentive to vote... and he doesn't even have much personal popularity even among core Republican demographics, except insofar as he's "our man in the White House."

But basically, if you're a Republican congressman, there are a whole lot of people who might be motivated to vote against you because they hate Trump, and very few people who will be motivated to vote FOR you because they love Trump. Impeachment proceedings or the prospect thereof will tend to amplify this effect.
_________________________

*(Which are sub-40% even now, WITHOUT a massive official FBI-compiled dossier of carefully sourced evidence indicating that he's a Russian agent or whatever)

Those are good points. It really comes down to how effective Eddie Munster and the Republican whip truly are in keeping the rank and file in line. Also, there are always Tea Party Alt-Right bugfuck crazy Neo Nazi's in suits and ties (probably bought while they were defendants in court proceedings ) just waiting for their chance to primary "RINO's". So the RNCC holds a lot of leverage, and can decide to support and fund a "disloyal" Republican's bugfuck crazy Nazi primary opponent.

But we'll see. It's almost like a zombie bite on the hand. The only way to live and not die to rise as a walking corpse is to amputate. Trump is the zombie infection and the Republicans are the person/host whose hand got bit, except the "brains" of the host are dicks and don't tell anyone that they got bitten. So the longer the Trump bitten hand is attached, the more the infection spreads, and the chance that just amputating the hand won't work. You have to cut off the lower arm now to have any chance, but again the host is in denial. So at some point the host (Republicans) will have to "man/woman-up" and either cut off the arm (at the least truly distance themselves and launch serious bi-partisan investigations or the better option; impeachment. Otherwise the host dies and is reanimated as a mindless, cannabalistic monster. So a bit worse than now.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the thing is, the RNCC is subject to the same calculation. The whole party is having to make this decision one Republican at a time. Trump is so unpopular that any vaguely swingable district in which the Republican candidate can be closely associated with Trump is going to be a very tough battle for the Republicans.

Trump started his first term in about the same place Dubya was at the beginning of his second term, and has managed to sink even farther, even faster, in the months since he took office. Trump's popularity is down around second-term Dubya popularity, and it's not likely to get much better.* And Dubya' unpopularity was a huge albatross around the neck for the Republicans in 2006-08, you may remember.

If the Republicans at any level try to double down and snipe their own 'moderates' who disown Trump, I think it is unlikely to go well for them.
____________________________________________

*Even if some horrible attack happens, well... Bush handled 9/11 in a way that was not an obvious transparent horrible fuckup all around, because he had actual staffers with decades of government experience, who knew how to plan stuff and organize. He actually made the right presidential mouth noises, had good speechwriters, came out with stuff like "we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail." This allowed him to retain the post-9/11 popularity boost.

By contrast, Trump's staff couldn't organize a drinking party in a brewery, and if they could he'd manage to fuck it up with a tweet. He won't stick to well-written presidential speeches because he can barely read and stay on-mission, he'll constantly reveal his utter ignorance and viciousness and inability to be anything other than petty and stupid towards people he dislikes. He just can't do it, because he's not even capable of convincingly playing a president on TV.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, the thing is, the RNCC is subject to the same calculation. The whole party is having to make this decision one Republican at a time. Trump is so unpopular that any vaguely swingable district in which the Republican candidate can be closely associated with Trump is going to be a very tough battle for the Republicans.

Unfortunately, a lot of them clearly believe that they can voter suppress/fraud their way over the finish line. They're still hard at work on new voter suppression laws, plus Trump's utterly vile voter database demand.

I expect Trump is counting on help from big brother Vladimir again too.

Or for the dumber ones, have just bought their own propaganda and believe most of the country is on their side.

Trump started his first term in about the same place Dubya was at the beginning of his second term, and has managed to sink even farther, even faster, in the months since he took office. Trump's popularity is down around second-term Dubya popularity, and it's not likely to get much better.* And Dubya' unpopularity was a huge albatross around the neck for the Republicans in 2006-08, you may remember.

If the Republicans at any level try to double down and snipe their own 'moderates' who disown Trump, I think it is unlikely to go well for them.
____________________________________________

I expect some of them will try to stay the course (see above), though I'm starting to hear talk of a Pence or Kasich primary challenge.

*Even if some horrible attack happens, well... Bush handled 9/11 in a way that was not an obvious transparent horrible fuckup all around, because he had actual staffers with decades of government experience, who knew how to plan stuff and organize. He actually made the right presidential mouth noises, had good speechwriters, came out with stuff like "we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail." This allowed him to retain the post-9/11 popularity boost.

By contrast, Trump's staff couldn't organize a drinking party in a brewery, and if they could he'd manage to fuck it up with a tweet. He won't stick to well-written presidential speeches because he can barely read and stay on-mission, he'll constantly reveal his utter ignorance and viciousness and inability to be anything other than petty and stupid towards people he dislikes. He just can't do it, because he's not even capable of convincingly playing a president on TV.

Honestly, if something 911-scale (or worse, a North Korean nuclear attack) happens under Trump... well, remember how crazy America went after 911? Trump may get more pushback than Bush would have, but do not doubt we will be looking at mass censorship of the press and interment camps, minimum.

Edit: And if you think I'm exaggerating, both of those things have precedent under well-respected, actually competent American Presidents in war time (if many decades ago). Hell, Lincoln suspended the right to Habeus Corpus.

[TheFeniX]

Honestly, if something 911-scale (or worse, a North Korean nuclear attack) happens under Trump... well, remember how crazy America went after 911? Trump may get more pushback than Bush would have, but do not doubt we will be looking at mass censorship of the press and interment camps, minimum.

Debatable IMHO. Bush got zero pushback up until talks started about warring with Iraq. And even then a lot of Americans bought the lie of WMDs hook, line, and sinker. Congress got bushwacked talking about more sanctions, then just went along when Bush started putting boots on the ground.

But, by and around the mid-2000s, I recall half (or around there) of Americans laying blame for 9/11 on the Bush and Clinton presidencies once all the facts came out. While I general avoid the "post-9/11 world" cliches, I do find it relevant here. It would be like a U.S. plane being hijacked. Not that it can't happen (though has there been another domestic U.S. plane hijacking since?), but it's unlikely the passengers would assume anything but the worst and consider fighting back near instantly.

We now "know bad guys will try and get us" and the government should be protecting us from this. So, if something slips by, where does the blame go? "We never saw it coming" is a lie. And the facts are so easy to get out there to show this as a lie.

And if anything, Democrats could use the attack as a means to harangue Trump for "talking big about protecting Americans while making us a prime target in reality." For all their talk, the DNC and RNC were pretty buddy-buddy before and after 9/11. It wasn't until the later parts of the 2000s we saw the split happen into partisan entrenchment. Democrats here have little to gain to give Trump a blank check like they did Bush.

And put who in camps? Muslims? Koreans? If NK hit America with a nuke, there isn't going to BE a North Korea for very long. Even if we don't respond with our own nukes, who exactly is going to back Korea when we go to put a boot up their ass? (Honestly asking: does anyone have the axe to grind to say "they nuked you, but we're still backing them in a shooting war.")

If... whatever, ISIS stages something near the scale of 9/11, the question then becomes "how did they do it?" and "where can we go fuck them up at?" Not to say innocents won't get shipped off the another Gitmo, but the days of a protracted shooting war where the U.S. locks up large swaths of minority groups "for their protection" are pretty much gone.

I'm thinking you'd see much less how the Japanese were treated during WW2 and more like how the Koreans and Vietnamese Americans were treated during the Korean/Vietnam War. Though to be fair here, until AFTER these wars, those ethnic groups didn't see a large representation in the States. Still, more Koreans here are likely from South Korea, and the U.S. knew the difference even during the more racist times of the preceding two wars.

And while anti-Muslim sentiment seems higher now (in general), U.S. Muslim are also better organized and represented than they were 15 years ago and no one was rounding up and throwing them in camps back then. Not that those are our only two options for aggressors, but there really is no group the U.S. could realistically target for unlawful imprisonment like we did during WW2.

[Dominus Atheos]

FBI conducted predawn raid of former Trump campaign chairman Manafort’s home

FBI agents raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman late last month, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Federal agents appeared at Paul Manafort’s home without advance warning in the predawn hours of July 26, the day after he met voluntarily with the staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... fe39704f31

[Khaat]

"Full cooperation" does not include the phrase "work something out", Paul, unless you're in a mob movie.

So who's telling the truth? Jr, who says Manafort was "busy on his phone" during the June '16 meeting, or Manafort who says he took "meticulous notes"? My opinion: they're both full of crap and the notes are more smoke and mirrors, a drop of truth and an ocean of lies.

I am seriously slipping into a level of comfort with the "conspiracy theory" that Trump & Co (& family) has been laundering money for the Russians for years, so the Russians helped push him over the top in the '16 election, in order to get rid of the Magnitsky Act (because it held up their money, "a regulation that gets in the way of doing business").

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, I just want to see every one of these assholes go to prison for the rest of their lives. Trump, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, Page, Sessions, Pence, Donald Jr., Kushner... It'd be just grand if we could get a few Congressmen on Obstruction too, for trying to hinder the investigation.

Hell, send little Baron Trump to juvie while we're at it, just to be thorough (okay, I'm joking on that one).

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the thing is, the RNCC is subject to the same calculation. The whole party is having to make this decision one Republican at a time. Trump is so unpopular that any vaguely swingable district in which the Republican candidate can be closely associated with Trump is going to be a very tough battle for the Republicans.

Unfortunately, a lot of them clearly believe that they can voter suppress/fraud their way over the finish line. They're still hard at work on new voter suppression laws, plus Trump's utterly vile voter database demand.

I expect Trump is counting on help from big brother Vladimir again too.

Or for the dumber ones, have just bought their own propaganda and believe most of the country is on their side.

As we are seeing, it only takes 10% or so of Republican legislators NOT being actively stupid or actively evil enough to plan to cheat their way to electoral victory for this factor to be heavily in play.

If that were not the case, the ACA would have been repealed by now. Because it's about 10% of Republican legislators, give or take, who are looking at that repeal and going "eheheehh..." and eyeing it nervously like the live bomb that it is.

Honestly, if something 911-scale (or worse, a North Korean nuclear attack) happens under Trump... well, remember how crazy America went after 911? Trump may get more pushback than Bush would have, but do not doubt we will be looking at mass censorship of the press and interment camps, minimum.

Edit: And if you think I'm exaggerating, both of those things have precedent under well-respected, actually competent American Presidents in war time (if many decades ago). Hell, Lincoln suspended the right to Habeus Corpus.

The thing is, imposing tyranny takes competence too, especially in a nation where most people think tyranny is bad in the abstract even if they're... iffy... on whether it's bad when it puts their favorite policies in charge.

It takes subtlety, it takes preparation and organization, it takes the ability to stick to a plan or to a set of talking points. It takes the graciousness and charisma to not alienate the key supporters whose overt or tacit cooperation lets you be a tyrant in the first place. It takes the self-control to not vomit exaggerated, impulsive versions of your own plans all over the Internet.

Incompetent fuckwits usually don't last long as tyrants, if only because someone ambitious and smarter than the fuckwit deposes them by force. Donald Trump can't obtain and work with a competent, loyal White House communications director; he's going to be hard-pressed to obtain and work with a competent chief of the secret police.

If Trump tries to impose tyranny, he's going to create a massive clusterfuck comparable to the Muslim ban, only on a much greater scale and with more interlocking conflicting interest groups and more chaos. We can expect presidential dictates to be issued by tweet, orders, counterorders, disorder, constant churn in the circle of advisors surrounding the White House... And meanwhile, a lot of people thinking quietly that if Trump could just somehow be removed from office, Mike Pence would be in charge.* And if they were BOTH removed from office, Paul Ryan would be in charge.

I'm damn sure Paul Ryan would be thinking that.
__________________________

*Mike Pence is not necessarily better in all ways, but he at least seems capable of working within the structures of constitutional government in general, most of the time.

[The Romulan Republic]

You make good points.

Reg. Pence, yeah. Pence is a theocrat, and has forever damned himself by tying himself to Trump, but he doesn't strike one as dangerously unstable.

[Elheru Aran]

You make good points.

Reg. Pence, yeah. Pence is a theocrat, and has forever damned himself by tying himself to Trump, but he doesn't strike one as dangerously unstable.

Pence can, at the very least, *appear* reasonably competent and Presidential. He seems far, far less likely to go shooting off his mouth on Twitter or whatever social-media platform he frequents, he seems sincere enough in his faith that if he's got any affairs (extramarital, illegal, or otherwise) they're probably well buried, and the most objectionable thing about him is mostly that his personal morals seem to dictate what he believes other people should do... which is more or less the case for a LOT of people, so he's hardly unique in that.

But really, the biggest thing in his favor is he's not an offensive, loud douchebag who needs his ego stroked on a regular basis.

I wouldn't WANT him as President... but given the choice between him, Trump, or Ryan?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Pence would be bad, but he'd be less likely to be catastrophically bad.

A Grand Jury is going to be convened by Robert Mueller. Link.

2) He fights it in court claiming that as POTUS he is immune from prosecution (by anyone other than Congress, and I've stated before that I don't believe even a huge Democratic win in both houses is any guarantee of impeachment for purely political reasons) while POTUS and the legal fight and injunctions may last long enough for him to avoid the charges until he loses in 2020 or if he wins, well into his second term. He may also win that case.

He is only immune for stuff done while President, anything before then he can still be convicted of. That's why the Trump University case would have kept going if he hadn't settled.

Yup, and from what I've heard (correct me if I'm mistaken), he's only immune for stuff done in an official capacity as President too. Ie, if he decided to grope one of the female White House staffers (which, let's be honest, he's probably done so on multiple occasions already), he would not be immune to being sued/charged for sexual harassment.

And pardons likewise have limits. He probably can't legally pardon himself, and I'm fairly certain that pardons do not confer immunity for violating state laws (he'd need a pardon from the state governor). They also don't confer immunity from impeachment.

If half the stuff people suspect him of turns out to be true, he's up shit creek.

[Dominus Atheos]

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542634370 ... ium=social

Russian Cyberattack Targeted Elections Vendor Tied To Voting Day Disruptions

When people in several North Carolina precincts showed up to vote last November, weird things started to happen with the electronic systems used to check them in.

"Voters were going in and being told that they had already voted — and they hadn't," recalls Allison Riggs, an attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

The electronic systems — known as poll books — also indicated that some voters had to show identification, even though they did not.

Investigators later discovered the company that provided those poll books had been the target of a Russian cyberattack.

There is no evidence the two incidents are linked, but the episode has revealed serious gaps in U.S. efforts to secure elections. Nine months later, officials are still trying to sort out the details.

...

That move caused a whole new set of problems: Voting was delayed — up to an hour and a half — in a number of precincts as poll workers waited for new supplies. With paper poll books, they had to cut voters' names out and attach them to a form before people could get their ballots.

"Precincts didn't have scissors, they didn't have tape, they didn't have glue sticks," says Riggs. As far as she was concerned, the solution was worse than the problem, and the state had overreacted.

But Susan Greenhalgh, who is part of an election security group called Verified Voting, worried that authorities underreacted. She was monitoring developments in Durham County when she saw a news report that the problem poll books were supplied by a Florida company named VR Systems.

"My stomach just dropped," says Greenhalgh.

She knew that in September, the FBI had warned Florida election officials that Russians had tried to hack one of their vendor's computers. VR Systems was rumored to be that company.

So those facts are some pretty strong conspiracy theory bait. Another juicy fact is that Durham County is the most democratic leaning county is the swing state of North Carolina.

So the conspiracy theory being thrown around is that Russia deliberately targeted Democratic voters in states and counties that used software they had previously hacked, and Durham was just the only one who had enough democratic voters for people to notice and not just chalk it up to random error. If they targeted 10% of likely democratic voters, that might be enough to swing the election, but not enough to get noticed in most places.

And of course the conspiracy theory goes that the Russians got the list of Democratic voters straight from the Trump campaign, something that has been alleged before.

[The Romulan Republic]

I remember after the election the Obama administration assured everyone that their was no actual tampering with the vote.

Shit like this makes me wonder if we ought to re-evaluate that reassuring conclusion.

Now, granted, this doesn't sound like actually altering votes, just making it harder for people to vote, but it comes to much the same thing in practice.

I don't know what, if anything, the Constitutional procedure would be for something as unprecedented as a Presidential election turning out to be fraudulent months or years after the fact, but to my mind, if it were proven that the Russians interfered with the actual voting on a large enough scale to swing the result, their is a strong argument to be made that the correct response is not impeaching Trump and replacing him with Pence.

Its declaring Trump's Presidency invalid, and allowing Hillary Clinton to serve out the remainder of her term, and run for re-election in 2020.