Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

So, the August 8th. deadline has come and gone with no further major reports, announcements, or indictments in the Mueller investigation. If Justice Department policy (not to make announcements that might effect an election within 90 days of said election) holds this time, it is unlikely we will hear much more before mid-November, at the soonest. We do still have the Manafort trials, however, which will be going on for much of the remaining election season (the second trial is due in September).

[The Romulan Republic]

The Trump administration had an immigrant mother and daughter seeking asylum deported back to El Salvador while their hearing was still in progress, breaking a pledge that none of the plaintiffs would be deported until midnight on Thursday. The judge found out about it part-way through considering the case. The judge was not pleased.

What happens next brings a smile to my face whenever I think about it: Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the family immediately returned to America pending his decision, and threatened to hold Jeff Sessions in contempt of court if this did not occur. He then followed it up with an order to halt further deportations of immigrants involved in the case, or he would demand that Sessions, Kirstjen Nielsen, and other Trump officials appear in court and explain why they should not be held in contempt.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN) - A federal judge on Thursday erupted at the Trump administration when he learned that two asylum seekers fighting deportation were at that moment being deported and on a plane to El Salvador.

DC District Judge Emmet Sullivan then blocked the administration from deporting the two plaintiffs while they are fighting for their right to stay in the US -- excoriating the administration and threatening to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt.

The government raced to comply with the court's order, and by Thursday evening the immigrants had arrived back in Texas after being turned around on the ground in El Salvador.

Sullivan agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the immigrants they are representing in a federal lawsuit should not be deported while their cases are pending.

The emergency hearing in he case turned dramatic when attorneys discovered partway through the hearing that two of their clients were on a plane to El Salvador.

Lead ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang Newell told CNN after the hearing the administration had pledged Wednesday that no one in the case would be deported until at least midnight at the end of Thursday. But during a recess in the proceedings Thursday, she got an email from attorneys on the ground in Texas that her client, known by the pseudonym Carmen, and Carmen's daughter had been taken from their detention center that morning and deported. After investigating during recess, she informed government attorneys and Sullivan what had happened.

"Oh, I want those people brought back forthwith. ... I'm not asking, I'm ordering," Sullivan said upon learning what had happened, which Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni confirmed, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Sullivan later added he was "directing the government to turn that plane around either now or when it lands, turn that plane around and bring those people back to the United States. It's outrageous."

Sullivan then threatened to hit Sessions with contempt, saying that if the immigrants weren't returned he was going to order officials to explain "why people should not be held in contempt of court, and I'm going to start with the attorney general."

The judge apparently grew visibly agitated, assuring Reuveni in court that it wasn't "personal."

"I know I'm raising my voice, but I'm extremely upset about this," the judge said. "This is not acceptable."

Sullivan continued with the hearing, which was near its end, but kept reflecting on how he was really upset" and found it "pretty outrageous" that "somebody" in the pursuit of justice ... is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her."

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of immigrants referred to only by their pseudonyms in court: Grace, Mina, Gina, Mona, Maria, Carmen and her daughter J.A.C.F. and Gio.

After the hearing, Sullivan issued an emergency order halting the deportation of any of the immigrants as he considers whether he has broader authority in the case.

Sullivan also ordered that if the two being deported were not returned, Session, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Lee Francis Cissna and Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry would have to appear in court and say why they should not be held in contempt.

The lawsuit brought by the ACLU is challenging a recent decision by Sessions to make it nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence and gangs to qualify for asylum in the U.S. That decision was followed by implementation guidance from the Department of Homeland Security that almost immediately began turning away potentially thousands of asylum seekers at the southern border.

According to their lawsuit, Carmen and her young daughter came to the US from El Salvador after two decades of horrific sexual abuse by her husband and death threats from a violent gang." Even after Carmen moved away from her husband, he raped her, stalked her and threatened to kill her, the lawsuit states. Further, a gang held her at gunpoint in May and demanded she pay a monthly "tax" or they would kill her and her daughter. Carmen knew of people killed by their husbands after going to the police and by this gang and thus fled to the U.S.

But at the border, the government determined after interviewing her that she did not meet the "credible fear" threshold required to pursue an asylum claim in the US, and an immigration judge upheld that decision.

The ACLU is using Carmen's story and the similar experiences of the other immigrants to challenge Sessions' ruling on asylum.

[The Romulan Republic]

Omarosa claims that Trump knew in advance about the DNC's hacked emails, and that she has it on tape: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/14/17689862/ ... ls-mueller

If this is true... there's your smoking fucking gun on collusion.

She also claims that there is tape of Trump using the N-word. The White House responded by saying that they could not confirm that Trump had not used the N-word.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nowhere in that article does it say that Omarosa has Trump on tape talking about those e-mails. It only says that she says that Trump knew about them. Which, yes, he almost certainly did, but the article rather specifically mentions that there is no proof of that and Omarosa hasn't mentioned whether or not any exists.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nowhere in that article does it say that Omarosa has Trump on tape talking about those e-mails. It only says that she says that Trump knew about them. Which, yes, he almost certainly did, but the article rather specifically mentions that there is no proof of that and Omarosa hasn't mentioned whether or not any exists.

You are correct. I can only presume that as I was typing that, I mixed up this claim with one of her others for which she does have tapes.

Of course, her testimony could still be useful for corroborating others' accounts. Hell, its even possible that she has a tape- given how many she claims to have, if it was something often talked about in the White House she may very well have it. But if she did, and she has talked to Mueller, I doubt that's something Mueller would want the press learning about. Mueller runs a very tight ship (Giuliani's defamatory claims that Mueller has illegally leaked to the press aside), and the last thing he'd want Trump to know in a hypothetical interview is which questions Mueller knows the real answers to.

Its frustrating, though, having to sift rumors rather than having a decisive answer. For all that Trumpers whine about how Mueller should wrap up the investigation, I doubt any one of them wants this to be over more than I do. We're just expecting/hoping for different outcomes.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics ... index.html

"You'd only impeach him for political reasons, and the American people would revolt against that," Giuliani said Thursday.

I know that there are very strong protections for freedom of speech in US law, and I know there are good reason for why that is so. But God help me, I wish Mueller could just arrest these fuckers for sedition.

Edit: Trumpolini also threatened that his impeachment would cause the stock market to crash.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I thought when it came to such freedom, there was an exception if the speech in question was hate speech.

Yeah, Trump seems to think he's a Load-Bearing Boss.

[The Romulan Republic]

I thought when it came to such freedom, there was an exception if the speech in question was hate speech.

Yeah, Trump seems to think he's a Load-Bearing Boss.

There is no ban on hate speech under US law (like there is in, for example, Canadian law). You can shout the N-word at the top of your lungs, and it might sink your career, but you won't go to jail or be fined or successfully sued for it.

There are laws prohibiting defamation of an individual (though I think you can pretty much say what you want about a public figure, IIRC), and against incitement or threats of violence, but generally only if its a specific, credible threat of violence against a specific target, I think (anyone who's more well-versed in US law, feel free to correct me).

Also, I believe there are some limits on speech that's likely to directly endanger people, like the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" example.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, the Mueller Probe's public approval rating just rose 11 points following the Cohen plea and Manafort conviction, bringing him to 59%.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/403161 ... -11-points

Given that Trump's approval rating has been hovering in the high thirties to low forties for the last several months, that suggests that pretty much everyone who's not a solid Trump supporter is on board with Mueller- potentially even that recent events have begun to crack the Trump base.

Edits: The significance, of course, is that this means that Trump cannot fire Mueller without trigger a massive backlash from the public- and that more and more of the public are realizing that the "witch hunt" narrative is bullshit, and there is, in fact, something there.

[Steve]

I thought when it came to such freedom, there was an exception if the speech in question was hate speech.

Yeah, Trump seems to think he's a Load-Bearing Boss.

There is no ban on hate speech under US law (like there is in, for example, Canadian law). You can shout the N-word at the top of your lungs, and it might sink your career, but you won't go to jail or be fined or successfully sued for it.

There are laws prohibiting defamation of an individual (though I think you can pretty much say what you want about a public figure, IIRC), and against incitement or threats of violence, but generally only if its a specific, credible threat of violence against a specific target, I think (anyone who's more well-versed in US law, feel free to correct me).

Also, I believe there are some limits on speech that's likely to directly endanger people, like the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" example.

Pretty much. Incitement to violence can be a gray area. General statements aren't usually prosecuted, but a hatemonger pointing to someone across the street and screaming they should be killed is more likely to get dealt with.

[The Romulan Republic]

Seems Roger Stone is speculating that Donald Jrs' arrest for lying to the FBI will be coming soon. Now, Roger Stone is about the least reliable source on the planet short of Donald himself, but its interesting to wonder whether he has some information to lead him to this conclusion, or (if he's bullshitting) what his motive is.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Seems Roger Stone is speculating that Donald Jrs' arrest for lying to the FBI will be coming soon. Now, Roger Stone is about the least reliable source on the planet short of Donald himself, but its interesting to wonder whether he has some information to lead him to this conclusion, or (if he's bullshitting) what his motive is.

God, the sight of Don Jr being arrested. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.
El Trumpo may consider himself "Immune" from prosecution... But lets see what happens when his family starts getting arrested.

[TheFeniX]

Trump and Republicans are now crying that Google searches about them are mostly negative and this is (of course) due to libural lies and slander not that trying to find a positive GOP focused story would be next to impossible.

Even IF Google was biasing their search results, isn't that their RIGHT being the government has no say in how they do business? GOP: "Free Market forever, until the free market says something bad about us. Then we regulate."

In other news, Trump is riling up evangelicals for this next round of elections by saying the American way of life is at stake, Antifa will respond with violence if they win (or lose), and if LIBURALS win we won't be able to say Merry Christmas anymore. You know, standard fear-mongering bullshit. This however is in stark contrast to Trump saying shit like "expect a red wave come Nov."

[Tribble]

No surprise that Trump is readying his base to take violent action if he loses (and possibly even if he wins). No doubt he'll be saying the election was rigged too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump and Republicans are now crying that Google searches about them are mostly negative and this is (of course) due to libural lies and slander not that trying to find a positive GOP focused story would be next to impossible.

Even IF Google was biasing their search results, isn't that their RIGHT being the government has no say in how they do business? GOP: "Free Market forever, until the free market says something bad about us. Then we regulate."

In other news, Trump is riling up evangelicals for this next round of elections by saying the American way of life is at stake, Antifa will respond with violence if they win (or lose), and if LIBURALS win we won't be able to say Merry Christmas anymore. You know, standard fear-mongering bullshit. This however is in stark contrast to Trump saying shit like "expect a red wave come Nov."

Standard fear-mongering, sure- but its usually not the President saying it.

A head of state saying "If the other side wins, there will be violence" is the kind of talk that tends to precede a civil war, or at the very least major political unrest.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, the White House Council Don McGann is leaving this fall according to the orange ape himself, after the (presumed) confirmation of Kavanaugh:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics ... index.html

Let's be clear: McGann is no saint. He has played a major role in implementing a number of Trump's most heinous policies. But he also blocked Trump's efforts to fire Mueller by threatening to resign, and this news comes shortly after it was revealed that he cooperated extensively with Mueller, and spoke to him for thirty hours (though it should be noted that his departure was hinted at before that).

Trump is considering replacing him with "Emmet flood, who now directs the Russia legal strategy from inside the White House..."

This looks like a continuation of the political purge of anyone in the government who isn't absolutely loyal to the Dear Leader, and potentially a prelude to an attempt to fire Mueller. If Republicans win the midterm, there may or may not be violence, but Mueller is probably going, as Trump continues to install loyal puppets who will defend his collusion and criminal cover-up.

[Tribble]

The midterms are going to be spinned as a Trump victory no matter what happens.

If Democrats lose both houses and remain passively resistant, it means that Trump is right (since the people voted for him), and that the liberals and Democrats are pushovers. Cue further suppression of them.

If the Democrats lose both houses and some get violent, it means that Trump was right all along about how dangerous the left is. Cue government clampdown, and calls for true 'Muricans to resist.

If the Democrats win one or both houses in spite of the odds, it means that Trump is right about a rigged vote and illegal immigrants. Cue government clampdown on illegals and Trump delegitimizing the vote, while blaming the Democrats for any failures. Any violence from the right is just, since a democrat victory means the election was rigged.

Hes pretty much got all of his bases covered.

[The Romulan Republic]

The midterms are going to be spinned as a Trump victory no matter what happens.

If Democrats lose both houses and remain passively resistant, it means that Trump is right (since the people voted for him), and that the liberals and Democrats are pushovers. Cue further erosion of rights.

If the Democrats lose both houses and some get violent, it means that Trump was right all along about how dangerous the left is. Cue government clampdown, and calls for true 'Muricans to resist.

If the Democrats win one or both houses in spite of the odds, it means that Trump is right about a rigged vote and illegal immigrants. Cue government clampdown on illegals and Trump delegitimizing the vote, while blaming the Democrats for any failures. Any violence from the right is just, since a democrat victory means the election was rigged.

Hes pretty much got all of his bases covered.

Again, I think its counterproductive to say things like "Trump will win whatever we do", because people will hear that and think "well then there's no point in voting, I might as well stay home". And while there is no outcome that is completely guaranteed to be risk-free, some are a hell of a lot worse than others.

A sweeping Trump/Republican victory would unquestionably be the worst. That would demoralize and neuter the opposition, convince many on the Left that resistance is hopeless, and many others that the only recourse is violent resistance. It would leave us with no means to block any further actions Trump might take, would be a symbolic vindication, would further cement in Republicans' minds that the only way to win is to be absolutely loyal to Trump and outbid their rivals to be the most extreme (aka, fascist), and it would almost certainly be shortly followed by the firing of Robert Mueller. All options other than massive civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale or armed revolt would likely be effectively closed.

Personally I would hope that civil disobedience and non-violent protest would be tried first, and I don't think (if it occurred on a large enough scale) that that would brand us "pushovers". But I also have no illusions that such protests would not be met with a degree of violence, either from Trump, local/state officials, Trumpers, or a combination of the above. Hell, it is entirely possible, even likely, that we'd see Kremlin agitators stirring up violence (they backed conflicting rallies on both sides in the wake of Trump's victory in 2016).

Of course, a great deal depends on whether there is credible evidence of fraud in a hypothetical Republican victory, as well.

In a Democratic win, Trump may try to label it fraudulent (indeed he almost certainly will), and there may be violent reactions from some of his supporters, but let's be clear: Trump is going to try to push neo-fascism, with himself as the Fuhrer, no matter what. A Democratic win, however, leaves him in a vastly weaker position from which to do so. A blue Congress can block a lot of things Trump might try to do. Unless he actually tried to prevent the new Congress from being seated by physical force, in which case we're back to the civil war/revolution scenario.

Even if the Kremlin hacks the voting machines and declares Republicans landslide winners, its worth it to get out and vote- because if there are exit polls overwhelmingly showing stronger Democratic turnout across the country, it will make fraud a lot harder to hide, a lot more obvious, and give us a stronger moral justification and political argument for any resistance that follows.

[Tribble]

The midterms are going to be spinned as a Tru0
mp victory no matter what happens.

If Democrats lose both houses and remain passively resistant, it means that Trump is right (since the people voted for him), and that the liberals and Democrats are pushovers. Cue further erosion of rights.

If the Democrats lose both houses and some get violent, it means that Trump was right all along about how dangerous the left is. Cue government clampdown, and calls for true 'Muricans to resist.

If the Democrats win one or both houses in spite of the odds, it means that Trump is right about a rigged vote and illegal immigrants. Cue government clampdown on illegals and Trump delegitimizing the vote, while blaming the Democrats for any failures. Any violence from the right is just, since a democrat victory means the election was rigged.

Hes pretty much got all of his bases covered.

Again, I think its counterproductive to say things like "Trump will win whatever we do", because people will hear that and think "well then there's no point in voting, I might as well stay home". And while there is no outcome that is completely guaranteed to be risk-free, some are a hell of a lot worse than others.

A sweeping Trump/Republican victory would unquestionably be the worst. That would demoralize and neuter the opposition, convince many on the Left that resistance is hopeless, and many others that the only recourse is violent resistance. It would leave us with no means to block any further actions Trump might take, would be a symbolic vindication, would further cement in Republicans' minds that the only way to win is to be absolutely loyal to Trump and outbid their rivals to be the most extreme (aka, fascist), and it would almost certainly be shortly followed by the firing of Robert Mueller. All options other than massive civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale or armed revolt would likely be effectively closed.

Personally I would hope that civil disobedience and non-violent protest would be tried first, and I don't think (if it occurred on a large enough scale) that that would brand us "pushovers". But I also have no illusions that such protests would not be met with a degree of violence, either from Trump, local/state officials, Trumpers, or a combination of the above. Hell, it is entirely possible, even likely, that we'd see Kremlin agitators stirring up violence (they backed conflicting rallies on both sides in the wake of Trump's victory in 2016).

Of course, a great deal depends on whether there is credible evidence of fraud in a hypothetical Republican victory, as well.

In a Democratic win, Trump may try to label it fraudulent (indeed he almost certainly will), and there may be violent reactions from some of his supporters, but let's be clear: Trump is going to try to push neo-fascism, with himself as the Fuhrer, no matter what. A Democratic win, however, leaves him in a vastly weaker position from which to do so. A blue Congress can block a lot of things Trump might try to do. Unless he actually tried to prevent the new Congress from being seated by physical force, in which case we're back to the civil war/revolution scenario.

Even if the Kremlin hacks the voting machines and declares Republicans landslide winners, its worth it to get out and vote- because if there are exit polls overwhelmingly showing stronger Democratic turnout across the country, it will make fraud a lot harder to hide, a lot more obvious, and give us a stronger moral justification and political argument for any resistance that follows.

To be specific I said it would be spun that way, not necessarily that he wins. There will be damage no matter what this election, but the best way it will be contained is obviously via the Democrats winning at least one house.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

A Democratic win is dangerous, in the way driving along a narrow mountain road in winter is dangerous. You can still slip and fall, the danger is still around you, but you have a decent chance of getting through if you're a little lucky and a little skilled.

A Republican win is basically the point where you've gone off the road, are flying through the guard rail, and will be lucky to survive with a few months in the hospital.

[The Romulan Republic]

Confirmation hearings now in progress for Kavanaugh. Though the likeliest outcome is that the Republicans will ram the nomination through before the Midterms in one of the most blatant displays of self-serving hypocrisy and contempt for the democratic process in recent history, it is interesting to note that among Democrat demands is that Kavanaugh (a man who believes that the President should be effectively immune to the Justice System) should pledge to recuse himself from cases related to the Trump investigation.

Personally, I feel that that should be demanded of both Trump's appointments. And while I'm not sure of the criteria to impeach a Justice, I would ask whether refusal to recuse (or promising to recuse and then failing to do so) might be grounds for the impeachment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in the future.

[Galvatron]

Imagine Trump's Twitter-rage if his SCOTUS appointees recuse themselves just like his Attorney General did.

[houser2112]

Confirmation hearings now in progress for Kavanaugh. Though the likeliest outcome is that the Republicans will ram the nomination through before the Midterms in one of the most blatant displays of self-serving hypocrisy and contempt for the democratic process in recent history,

I guess it depends on how you define "recent", but if he's confirmed before the midterms, it would probably be the fastest confirmation in the last 20 years or so. Unfortunately, 538's data doesn't include Gorsuch's hearings. I'd like to know how fast that one was rammed through.

Imagine Trump's Twitter-rage if his SCOTUS appointees recuse themselves just like his Attorney General did.

Heh, there wouldn't be enough popcorn in the world for that show.

[Tribble]

Imagine Trump's Twitter-rage if his SCOTUS appointees recuse themselves just like his Attorney General did.

It'd be nice, but the whole point is that this guy will probably be a Republican/Trump loyalist first, judge second.

Even if Trump ate a live baby in front of him I wouldn't be surprised if his only reaction was to shrug and remind everyone that Trump cant be charged for that, only impeached. And make sure that the other conservative judges fall in line.

[The Romulan Republic]

Confirmation hearings now in progress for Kavanaugh. Though the likeliest outcome is that the Republicans will ram the nomination through before the Midterms in one of the most blatant displays of self-serving hypocrisy and contempt for the democratic process in recent history,

I guess it depends on how you define "recent", but if he's confirmed before the midterms, it would probably be the fastest confirmation in the last 20 years or so. Unfortunately, 538's data doesn't include Gorsuch's hearings. I'd like to know how fast that one was rammed through.

Its more the fact that they made a big show just two years ago of how "We should wait until after the election to let the voters decide" in order to deny Barrack Obama his Constitutional right and obligation to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to fill Scalia's seat-effectively stealing that seat*. But now that they're in power its "Quick ram it through as fast as possible before the Midterms!" Its disgusting- the contempt for democracy and the fair play on which it depends could not be more obvious.

*For this reason, it is my belief that Gorsuch should not be considered a legitimate Justice, that he should be impeached as soon as it is politically possible to do so regardless of his conduct as a Justice, and that any ruling passed on his vote should be regarded as illegitimate and subject to civil disobedience. As far as I am concerned, there have been eight Justices on the Supreme Court since 2016 (now seven).