Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Dominus Atheos]

EPA head Scott Pruit is has resigned.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17192716/s ... ew-wheeler

[Elheru Aran]

EPA head Scott Pruit is has resigned.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17192716/s ... ew-wheeler

About damn time. There was no other way he could've gone down nicely. Here's looking forward to the next corrupt corporate oligarch Trump appoints.

[The Romulan Republic]

Good riddance. Especially as he was reportedly floating the idea of Trump putting him in as Attorney General to replace Sessions as a first step to firing Mueller and/or Rosenstein.

Hope his replacement gets filibustered.

[SCRawl]

Good riddance. Especially as he was reportedly floating the idea of Trump putting him in as Attorney General to replace Sessions as a first step to firing Mueller and/or Rosenstein.

Hope his replacement gets filibustered.

How? The current senate rules require 51 votes to invoke cloture.

Edit: I should say, a simple majority is required. So 50 votes, since the Democrats only have 49 senators.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I thought they'd got rid of the filibuster only for judicial appointments, not all appointments. My mistake.

Though IIRC, with McCain absent for health reasons, the Republicans have fifty, and the Dems have 49 plus Bernie. Which means that if its a straight party-line vote (counting Bernie as a Dem.), then the Republicans can pass their nominee on a Mike Pence tie-breaker, but a single defection would sink their nominee (presuming that no Democrats defected).

Trump will probably be able to get through a fairly conservative nominee with Republican unity, or with a Dem. defection or two. But some of the worst options could probably be blocked, and if there are any Republicans on the fence, it can probably at least be delayed.

Edited because I mixed this thread up with the Supreme Court topic.

[TimothyC]

Though IIRC, with McCain absent for health reasons, the Republicans have fifty, and the Dems have 49 plus Bernie. Which means that if its a straight party-line vote (counting Bernie as a Dem.), then the Republicans can pass their nominee on a Mike Pence tie-breaker, but a single defection would sink their nominee (presuming that no Democrats defected).

You fail at math and civics.

Republicans have 51 with McCain.

Democrats have 47, but also have Sens King and Sanders who caucus with them. That gets you to 100, not the 101 you have.

To be clear, this means that in a party line vote, Republicans still win, and with one defection, Pence and break the tie.

[SCRawl]

Though IIRC, with McCain absent for health reasons, the Republicans have fifty, and the Dems have 49 plus Bernie. Which means that if its a straight party-line vote (counting Bernie as a Dem.), then the Republicans can pass their nominee on a Mike Pence tie-breaker, but a single defection would sink their nominee (presuming that no Democrats defected).

You fail at math and civics.

Republicans have 51 with McCain.

Democrats have 47, but also have Sens King and Sanders who caucus with them. That gets you to 100, not the 101 you have.

To be clear, this means that in a party line vote, Republicans still win, and with one defection, Pence and break the tie.

The Republicans do have 51 with McCain, but based on the reasonably safe assumption that he's not going to be available, it's realistically 50 to (47+2). Assuming a party line vote, the Republicans can't be stopped. Logically, there's no good reason for any Democrats to defect, though some red-state Dems have made the calculation that they are more likely to win re-election if they demonstrate moderate behaviour, which is a bad idea IMHO.

[TimothyC]

The Republicans do have 51 with McCain, but based on the reasonably safe assumption that he's not going to be available, it's realistically 50 to (47+2). Assuming a party line vote, the Republicans can't be stopped. Logically, there's no good reason for any Democrats to defect, though some red-state Dems have made the calculation that they are more likely to win re-election if they demonstrate moderate behaviour, which is a bad idea IMHO.

Correct. My issue was that TRR both can't add (50(R) + 49(D) + McCain + Sanders = 101, not 100) and didn't know the make up of the senate (Forgetting that it's 47 Dems plus Sanders and King). He was double counting Sanders.

[Elfdart]

I think it's worse than not being able to count -it's delusional thinking. Collins and Murkowski will no doubt make some pablum statement that they have assurances from whoever is nominated that precedent will be respected, blah, blah, blah...

And they'll vote to confirm and for the first time in almost 50 years, women and girls who have been raped will be forced by many states into being their rapists' baby mama.

For the life of me, I don't get how so many Dems keep waiting for those "reasonable Republicans" to come around. McCain has been the patron saint of this cult my entire adult life. Watching Democrats wishing on a star for him and others like him is like watching Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.

[The Romulan Republic]

Though IIRC, with McCain absent for health reasons, the Republicans have fifty, and the Dems have 49 plus Bernie. Which means that if its a straight party-line vote (counting Bernie as a Dem.), then the Republicans can pass their nominee on a Mike Pence tie-breaker, but a single defection would sink their nominee (presuming that no Democrats defected).

You fail at math and civics.

Republicans have 51 with McCain.

Democrats have 47, but also have Sens King and Sanders who caucus with them. That gets you to 100, not the 101 you have.

To be clear, this means that in a party line vote, Republicans still win, and with one defection, Pence and break the tie.

I miscounted the Dems, but it changes absolutely nothing about my ultimate conclusions. The Republicans have fifty plus McCain (so effectively fifty). You are correct, therefore, that a party-line vote would not require a Pence tie-breaker (as it would be 49 to 50), but I am still correct that a single Republican defection would sink it (presuming Democrats and independents held the line, one R defection would make it 50-49 in their favor).

With one defection, Trump's nominee is fucked. My error did not change the accuracy of my ultimate conclusion (unlike your error).

But, this being SDN's news and politics forum, I fully expect everyone to focus on mocking me rather than debating the actual issue at hand.

Eldart: Our situation in this country is bad enough without people like you saying "Don't even try to campaign for a better outcome because you've already lost". Let's try to block the nominee. If we fail, then we can talk about other ways of counteracting Republican dominance of the Supreme Court (I repeat that trying to block the nominee is something we can do now, while your preferred solution of packing the Court will not be possible to act on until 2021 at the earliest).

[Napoleon the Clown]

I think it's worse than not being able to count -it's delusional thinking. Collins and Murkowski will no doubt make some pablum statement that they have assurances from whoever is nominated that precedent will be respected, blah, blah, blah...

And they'll vote to confirm and for the first time in almost 50 years, women and girls who have been raped will be forced by many states into being their rapists' baby mama.

For the life of me, I don't get how so many Dems keep waiting for those "reasonable Republicans" to come around. McCain has been the patron saint of this cult my entire adult life. Watching Democrats wishing on a star for him and others like him is like watching Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.

The Democrats that legitimately believe that there exist any remaining "moderate" Republicans in Congress are blithering idiots. The Democrats that support any of Trump's nominees are Republicans in a donkey suit.

[The Romulan Republic]

There are no moderate Republicans, but there are a few who are less lock-step loyal to Trump than others, and there have been a few times that Republicans defected, or at least wavered (and thus dragged things out) on a major vote. Swinging one would sink the nominee, if Democrats and independents hold the line. Even making some have doubts could drag out the confirmation process- possibly past the November elections. This is not idiocy- its fact. But apparently I am to be subjected to ridicule for not agreeing that Democrats should surrender one of the most crucial decisions of the decade before its begun.

Even if we lose, its worthwhile to fight this one out. Because one of the most common criticisms of the Democrats is the perception that they are weak, quick to back down, pushovers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Der Fuhrer has just pardoned two persons related to the Bundy militia occupation (though not directly involved):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44775113

From the article:

Dwight Hammond, 76, and his son Steven Hammond, 49, were convicted in 2012 after a prescribed burn on their land spread to nearby public lands in 2001.

The pair served time in jail, but a judge later ruled that they must serve their full five-year sentence.

The ruling sparked anti-government protests that left one rancher dead.

"The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community and have widespread support from their neighbours, local law enforcement and farmers and ranchers across the West," the White House said in statement on Tuesday announcing their full pardon.

"Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency."

The Hammonds claimed that the fire was to fend off invasive species, but prosecutors alleged that it was set to cover up evidence of illegal deer poaching and that it posed a grave risk to firefighters.

The case had drawn the attention of limited-government proponents, including the family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who was himself facing charges relating to an armed standoff with law enforcement stemming from a refusal to pay fees for grazing on public lands.

On 2 January 2016 the armed militiamen - who were never directly endorsed by the Hammonds - took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuges and widened the range of demands.

It's not going to get as much attention as the pardons of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Bush administration official Scooter Libby or conservative provocateur Dinesh D'Souza, but Mr Trump's recent move sends a clear message to those who are watching.

The president stands with right-wing militias in their disputes with the government.

The Obama administration insisted the Hammonds receive a mandatory minimum sentence of five years - but Mr Trump has other ideas. While the president and his administration may espouse rigorous enforcement of the law in other areas, in this case they insist that a vigorous prosecution was unwarranted.

What's more, the president, once again, has shown he is willing to use his pardon power to address what he sees political wrongs. That's a message interested parties - perhaps those in the crosshairs of Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation - won't miss, either.

[The Romulan Republic]

The hearing investigating FBI agent peter Strzok in Congress today was sickening. Welcome to political show trials in the United States Congress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulexR_e7yJI

Keep in mind that while I do think that it was appropriate to remove him from the investigation (as Mueller did) to avoid any appearance of bias, a Justice Department report has already concluded that there is no evidence of anti-Trump bias affecting investigations in Comey's FBI. There is no real evidence that he has committed any crime. So what Strzok is being investigated for is expressing anti-Trump opinions in private messages. That's it. Let me repeat: He is under investigation for expressing personal opinions, in private, that are critical of Trump.

Also, kudos to Representative Cummings, who ignored Republicans' objections and instructed his aids to hold up pictures of Trump campaign members and administration officials who have pled guilty in the Mueller probe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Mueller and Rosenstein indict 12 GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers for various offenses including hacking Democratic emails and computer systems, as well as hacking a state election board and stealing voter information, hacking a company that made software for voter registration, and money laundering:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics ... index.html

Notable details include:

-The hacking occurred as part of the officers' official duties.

-They contacted Americans, but no Americans are named in this indictment.

-Guciffer2.0, the identity of the DNC hacker, was allegedly a front for the GRU.

-The White House is, of course, trying to spin this as a vindication, since no Americans were indicted THIS time. This ignores that the indictment further calls into question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, and that it underlines in the inappropriatness of his closeness to Putin and his attempts to undermine the investigation while refusing to act to protect American elections. It also ignores that the investigation is ongoing, and that the very fact that their first response to evidence of an attack on our elections is to try to spin it for partisan purposes shows that Trump is unfit to be President.

[The Romulan Republic]

In case anyone's wondering, the tally for the Mueller investigation is now at:

-191 charges.
-32 persons and 3 companies.

Yeah, that's a whole lot of nothing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Word is that House Republicans are preparing to impeach Rosenstein (likely a prelude to placing a Trump loyalist in charge of the investigation, and firing Mueller):

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... oon-report

Oddly enough, this news gives me some hope. Because if they go through with this, it smacks of desperation. A conviction, and removal of Rosenstein, would require a two-thirds Senate majority that they will never get. Democrats hold 47 seats out of 100 seats plus two independent seats, voting for a politically-motivated conviction of Rosenstein* would be likely political suicide for a Dem, and it is doubtful that every Republican in the Senate would vote for this move either. Perhaps they are counting on having sufficiently poisoned public opinion that they won't suffer a massive backlash over this, or even that the base will be rallied and inspired to turn out by such a move, but impeaching Rosenstein right after the latest round of indictments, and so close to the election, is likely to inspire massive opposition and outrage as well.

I expect one consideration is that an announcement on the Obstruction case is expected imminently, likely by August 8th (due to Justice Department policy of not making announcements that might effect an election within 90 days of the election). So they are running out of time to scuttle this investigation, and they are panicking.

So yeah, desperation. You can smell the fear on these fuckers.

*Probably the best actual grounds for impeaching Rosenstein, ironically enough, would be his role in helping Trump to justify the firing of Comey, which could make him complicit in Obstruction of Justice. I'm sure the Trumpers would be Orwellian enough to try that will still proclaiming Trump's innocence, but any plausible impeachment case against Rosenstein would be an even stronger impeachment case against Trump, in my opinion.

[houser2112]

I expect one consideration is that an announcement on the Obstruction case is expected imminently, likely by August 8th (due to Justice Department policy of not making announcements that might effect an election within 90 days of the election). So they are running out of time to scuttle this investigation, and they are panicking.

Comey was an employee of the Justice Department, was he not?

[The Romulan Republic]

I expect one consideration is that an announcement on the Obstruction case is expected imminently, likely by August 8th (due to Justice Department policy of not making announcements that might effect an election within 90 days of the election). So they are running out of time to scuttle this investigation, and they are panicking.

Comey was an employee of the Justice Department, was he not?

Yes, he was. And in fairness to Comey, this is merely a Justice Department policy, not a law. That said, however one feels about Comey's actions (personally, I think the timing was extremely unfortunate and his judgment perhaps questionable, but that his motives were honest and non-partisan)- look at the result of that action. Comey's decision to violate that norm helped to taint his reputation across the entire political spectrum, and ultimately became a pretext (albeit a deeply disingenuous one by Trump's own admission) for his firing. There is no way that someone with a reputation like Mueller's is going to give Trump such a perfect gift-wrapped pretext to fire him.

So I think that we will see at least a partial report from Mueller likely before the 8th. but if not, then there will be nothing big until after the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's a link to the full text of the indictments (PDF file):

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/1 ... ctment.pdf

Linked to from this article:

www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics/russia- ... index.html

Its almost 30 pages of legalese, but well-worth reading. It lays out in detail the methods by which Russian GRU officers hacked into the DCCC, DNC, and various election organizations, implanted malware and stole a wide range of personal and elections data, and money-laundered to cover their tracks.

Of particular note is the fact that some of these offenses were committed in cooperation with other parties who remain unknown to the grand jury, suggesting that further indictments will be coming. It also refers to communications between the GRU officers and unnamed journalists, an unnamed Congressional candidate, an unnamed associate of Trump's who is believed to be Roger Stone, and an unnamed organization which from context is obviously Wikileaks.

Also, as an aside, it has been reported that the GRU attempted to hack Clinton within hours of Trump making his "joke" call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails on television.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's latest coercion tactic on immigration: threatening a government shutdown if the Democrats don't approve the border wall and end "catch and release", among other things:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/politics/tr ... index.html

Of course, this is pure bullshit. He doesn't need Democratic votes to do either of these things, and "catch and release" already ended when he decided that it was better to arrest everybody and lock children indefinitely in cages without due process. I expect that what he's actually asking is "Rather than keeping families together by allowing the parents to go free until their hearing, approve keeping families together by locking up the children indefinitely with their parents".

In short, he is threatening a shutdown heading into election season to try to coerce the Democrats into becoming collaborators in what I believe are crimes against humanity.

What scares me most is that if history is any guide, the Democratic leadership will probably give him most or all of what he wants, after a token show of resistance, in order to avoid being blamed for a shutdown going into the election. In that case... well, I've been telling people to put aside their complaints and vote Dem no matter what, because I believe the only likely alternatives to a blue wave at this point are fascist dictatorship or civil war. But even knowing that, I honestly do not know if I could in good conscious vote for any Democrat who caved to Trump on this issue. I really do not want to have to make that choice.

Please, call your representatives and tell them not to cave in to this coercion. If we have to have a shutdown until the new Congress is seated, so be it. I'd rather have no government at all, than this one.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

In that case I think that if I were a Democrat I'd be calling Trump's bluff and daring him to make good on his threats.

[The Romulan Republic]

That is exactly what they should do. Say "Trump is holding the government hostage to force us to sign off on indefinite detention of children without due process, we will not give in to threats." If he wants to go ahead and do it anyway, let him.

The electorate respects the appearance of strength. That does not mean you have to be a posturing, hateful bully like Trump, but it does mean you have to have something resembling a spine. Endless concessions to Trump to avoid a shutdown makes the Democrats appear weak, at this point, and encourages more hostage-taking by Republicans in the future.

There is the risk that some people will blame the Democrats' "refusal to compromise" for a shutdown- but a large percentage of those people are the Trump loyalists. And for every Centrist such a stand might piss off, there is a progressive who will be (justifiably, in this case) enraged by a surrender.

[Crossroads Inc.]

In other news, Trump basically admits to Collusion with Russian during 2016, by saying its totally not a crime to collude, and he didn't know about it even though it totally happened. NPR

Updated at 8:03 a.m. ET

It was a tweet that set off a storm. Was President Trump admitting to collusion between his campaign and Russia? Was he stipulating that the now notorious June 2016 Trump Tower meeting arranged by his son Donald Trump Jr. really was all about getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer and not adoption issues as President Trump had earlier claimed?

"This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere," the president tweeted early Sunday.

He concluded the tweet by saying, "I did not know about it!"

""Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
5:35 AM - Aug 5, 2018"""

While Trump and his legal team insist there was nothing illegal and "no collusion," Trump's apparent-tweeted admission on Sunday was, it turns out, also nothing new. It's the very talking point the president and his aides settled on more than a year ago, after their initial claim that the meeting was just about adoptions didn't hold up.

It has been widely reported that the Trump Tower meeting and statements from the president and his son about that meeting are being examined as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible connections to the Trump campaign.

"I think from a practical standpoint most people would've taken that meeting. It's called opposition research, or even research into your opponent," Trump said at a news conference in July 2017 when asked why his son would take the meeting rather than alert the FBI. "That's very standard in politics. Politics is not the nicest business in the world, but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information."

Trump went on to say that nothing came from the meeting. A few days later, Trump tweeted the same defense.

Political operatives on both sides of the aisle quickly said, no, they wouldn't have taken a meeting with a foreign operative and would have reported the offer to authorities.

As a reminder, the offer came to Trump Jr. by way of Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant. Goldstone represented the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father is a real estate developer with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting," Goldstone wrote to Trump Jr. in early June 2016.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father," Goldstone continued, adding this was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Trump Jr. was receptive, responding in part, "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

The meeting, first reported by The New York Times, happened two weeks after Trump secured the Republican nomination. It took place at Trump Tower and among those in attendance were Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, Trump Jr., Trump's then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who now serves as a White House senior adviser.

Once those emails were released, Trump and his team had little choice but to say the meeting's purpose was to get dirt on Clinton, even if they claimed Veselnitskaya didn't bring any with her and instead focused on Russia's halt in the U.S. adoption of Russian children in retaliation for sanctions imposed by the U.S.

Trump's lawyers also eventually admitted that Trump Jr. initial statement claiming the meeting had been about adoptions and nothing more had been dictated by President Trump himself from Air Force One.

What is new from the president's comments Sunday is his declaration that the meeting is "totally legal." It may not be so cut and dried. Federal campaign finance law states it is illegal for a foreign national to "directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value."

"Hard to see how there is not a serious case here of solicitation. Trump Jr. appears to have knowledge of the foreign source and is asking to see it," Rick Hasen, a campaign finance law expert, wrote on his blog last year. "Such information can be considered a 'thing of value' for purposes of the campaign finance law."

Later Sunday, Jay Sekulow, one of the president's lawyers, defended the 2016 meeting. "The question is: How would it be illegal?" Sekulow asked on ABC News' "This Week," saying no laws prohibit campaign aides from meeting with foreign agents. "Nobody's pointed to one."

Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to see the Mueller investigation shut down. On Wednesday, he tweeted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who recused himself last year from all matters related to the Justice Department investigation — should "stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further."

It's unclear whether Trump's latest admission will affect Mueller's probe in any way. But, as NPR's Brian Naylor reports, if Mueller could prove Trump was aware of the meeting in advance, "or cast doubt on denials by Trump and Trump Jr., it would be a dramatic addition to Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential race and possible collusion by the Trump campaign

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, we've known for a while that collusion happened, and that Trump most likely knew about it. But Trump admitting it (and, implicitly, that he lied about it before) is more fuel for the obstruction case.

The question now is: was said collusion criminal (Trumpers love to say that just talking to someone to get dirt on an opponent isn't illegal, though it may well be if said someone represents a foreign government, and it certainly is if there was a quid pro quo or coordination of the hacking itself, for example)? Also, can Mueller prove it.

My guess is yes and yes. Recent reports have Mueller focusing on Don Jr. and the Trump Tower meeting, so we're likely going to see Don Jr. being indicted for conspiracy/election law violations (and possibly trying to flip him to testify against daddy), in my opinion.