Nobody's going to be breaking the law on the promise that Trump will pardon them, other than the most corrupt of his cronies. It's just another empty boast.
It's less that the orders aren't being followed (though Possum is correct in that people willing to openly defy Trump have been purged), and more that the orders are being issued.
This is like that scene from Downfall. Just with less self-introspection, and more Nazis.
"Chairman Cummings and Nadler are launching investigations into the president's promotion of his Doral property for the G7 next year and VP Pence's stay at a Trump property in Ireland last week, per committee release."
- Josh Dawsey is a WaPo White House reporter.
I mean, it shouldn't shock anyone that the President may have CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY BROKEN THE LAW, but I'm also not holding my breath that these investigations are going to do anything, as with any of the past ones. Like the clear cut "it's the fucking law" one over tax returns. Congressman Neal asked for them at least as early as May. Lawsuit filed in early July. And unless Congress and the media are sitting on it, there's been nothing. For a legal action for which there is no real nuance (at least as far as the wording of the law is concerned).
Glad to see they're making noise. Wish that noise resulted in a little more substance.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
They conclude with impeachment, which won't even be taken up by the Senate if it passes the House. Aside from keeping how corrupt Trump is in the news cycle they don't have the power to do much. Even then, it risks just normalizing the behavior.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
They conclude with impeachment, which won't even be taken up by the Senate if it passes the House. Aside from keeping how corrupt Trump is in the news cycle they don't have the power to do much. Even then, it risks just normalizing the behavior.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
They conclude with impeachment, which won't even be taken up by the Senate if it passes the House. Aside from keeping how corrupt Trump is in the news cycle they don't have the power to do much. Even then, it risks just normalizing the behavior.
Impeachment proceedings are an open question, since it's debatable if the authority for scheduling them lies with the Chief Justice (as they run the show)
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
But I'm not counting on it.
I'd like to think the Federal government could charge trump for what is effectively embezzlement of federal funds and then sue the fuck out of him for the sheer graft he's made a cornerstone of his administration.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
But I'm not counting on it.
Ya we're going to figure out where this country is come next november. Either trump gets re-elected and they take the house or he gets ousted and Democrats keep control. I really don't see it going another way, one side is going to win big and the other lose big. We're at a crossroads here as a country.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
But I'm not counting on it.
I'd like to think the Federal government could charge trump for what is effectively embezzlement of federal funds and then sue the fuck out of him for the sheer graft he's made a cornerstone of his administration.
I think they could. I'm just not sure they will.
I'm fully expecting "Now it's time for the country to heal" blanket armistice, like what we got with Obama for Bush.
It's pretty clear by the fact that too many Democratic lawmakers don't think it's worth going after Trump now (still 80+ opposed by my last count). I'm not sure they'll be any more in favor of legal action against a former President, or will argue that "setting a precedent" to go after politicians that have concluded their terms is a slippery slope.
Heck, Biden, the frontrunner, is on record as saying that impeachment would be divisive.
Hope I'm wrong. Hope any and every fucker that's broken the law gets the full weight of it put on their neck. I just am not betting on it.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
But I'm not counting on it.
I'd like to think the Federal government could charge trump for what is effectively embezzlement of federal funds and then sue the fuck out of him for the sheer graft he's made a cornerstone of his administration.
I think they could. I'm just not sure they will.
I'm fully expecting "Now it's time for the country to heal" blanket armistice, like what we got with Obama for Bush.
It's pretty clear by the fact that too many Democratic lawmakers don't think it's worth going after Trump now (still 80+ opposed by my last count). I'm not sure they'll be any more in favor of legal action against a former President, or will argue that "setting a precedent" to go after politicians that have concluded their terms is a slippery slope.
Heck, Biden, the frontrunner, is on record as saying that impeachment would be divisive.
Hope I'm wrong. Hope any and every fucker that's broken the law gets the full weight of it put on their neck. I just am not betting on it.
Yeah no. Obama tried to be the peace maker, heal the divide and deal with the clusterfuck of problems that were assailing the US and it got him two years of shenanigans from folks who had no interest in co-operation and I can't imagine that the republicans will be any more ammenable to co-operating if they get ousted in 2020.
Hell, this might actually be the greatest thing about the trump presidency: the end of looking the other way on obvious fuckmuppetry from the white house.
are any of the other 5,000 investigations going to ever conclude?
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
But I'm not counting on it.
I'd like to think the Federal government could charge trump for what is effectively embezzlement of federal funds and then sue the fuck out of him for the sheer graft he's made a cornerstone of his administration.
I think they could. I'm just not sure they will.
I'm fully expecting "Now it's time for the country to heal" blanket armistice, like what we got with Obama for Bush.
It's pretty clear by the fact that too many Democratic lawmakers don't think it's worth going after Trump now (still 80+ opposed by my last count). I'm not sure they'll be any more in favor of legal action against a former President, or will argue that "setting a precedent" to go after politicians that have concluded their terms is a slippery slope.
Heck, Biden, the frontrunner, is on record as saying that impeachment would be divisive.
Hope I'm wrong. Hope any and every fucker that's broken the law gets the full weight of it put on their neck. I just am not betting on it.
Yeah no. Obama tried to be the peace maker, heal the divide and deal with the clusterfuck of problems that were assailing the US and it got him two years of shenanigans from folks who had no interest in co-operation and I can't imagine that the republicans will be any more ammenable to co-operating if they get ousted in 2020.
Hell, this might actually be the greatest thing about the trump presidency: the end of looking the other way on obvious fuckmuppetry from the white house.
If we’re lucky.
God forbid Dems win and decide not to fix all the systems Trump, McConnell, and the GOP have broken in some futile attempts to “move forward” or some such bullshit, except next time the GOP gets in the Oval Office they’ll probably be more competent than Trump but now armed with how much they can break the system and no one will give a shit, and then break the system further.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The House Oversight committee is investigating why the Department of Defense spent millions diverting its crews so they stayed overnight at Trump’s golf course and country club in Turnberry, Scotland, amid concerns that the DoD is essentially propping up the struggling business.
Meanwhile, the impeachment investigation into Trump is set to be formalized next week. The judiciary committee are expected to vote on Wednesday to define the exact scope of the investigation.
It’s worth mentioning by the way that, according to Politico, the House Oversight Committee have been quietly investigating the DoD’s overnights at Turnberry since April. The only reason it’s coming to light now is because the DoD have failed to comply and so the Committee is stepping things up to get access to the documents it needs.
Between this and how quiet the impeachment investigation was over the recess I’m wondering how many other investigations might be going on that we’re simply not hearing about yet.
I'd really like to hear the excuse for why military personnel had to use trump's properties as opposed to a local barracks.
I found it equal parts funny and sad that there are records of one particular guy texting a friend to complain that his per diem allowance couldn’t cover the cost of food and drink at the place.
I'd really like to hear the excuse for why military personnel had to use trump's properties as opposed to a local barracks.
Depending on the personel, availability of bilitting, they may have received per diem. When you go on temporary tdy, youre not required to stay in barracks. They are occupied by permenantly stationed personel. There are both officers and enlisted berthing that is like a hotel you pay for, and youre ususally given per diem to stay somewhere depending on availability, the area, how long you were staying etc....
However I wouldn't think per diem would have covered a stay in a trump resort.
But on this particular trip, the plane landed in Glasgow — a pitstop the five-man crew had never experienced in their dozens of trips to the Middle East. The location lacked a U.S. base and was dozens of miles away from the crew’s overnight lodging at the Turnberry resort.
Had the crew needed to make a stop in the U.K., Lakenheath Air Base is situated nearby in England. The layover might have been cheaper, too: the military gets billed at a higher rate for fuel at commercial airports.
A senior Air Force official who was previously stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska — where the C-17 crew was based — said choosing to refuel in Glasgow and stay at a posh property a half hour away would be unusual for such a mission. Typically, the official said, air crews stay on a military base while in transit or at nearby lodgings “unless all the hotels are booked or there is a Scottish sheep festival going on.”
Prestwick Airport has long been debt-ridden. The Scottish government bought it in 2013 for £1, but it has continued to lose money in the years since. In June, the government announced its intent to sell the airport, which the panel’s letter described as “integral” to the success of the Turnberry property, 30 miles away.
Because of that, the lawmakers argued that the spending at the airport — in addition to the spending at the Trump property — raises concerns about conflicts of interest and possible violations of the domestic emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the president from receiving any compensation from the federal government other than his salary. After being elected, Trump chose not to fully divest himself from his business interests, choosing instead to put his holdings in a trust that he can receive money from at any time.
I want to believe the Scottish sheep festival causing a problem is a real thing that happened.
I'd really like to hear the excuse for why military personnel had to use trump's properties as opposed to a local barracks.
Depending on the personel, availability of bilitting, they may have received per diem. When you go on temporary tdy, youre not required to stay in barracks. They are occupied by permenantly stationed personel. There are both officers and enlisted berthing that is like a hotel you pay for, and youre ususally given per diem to stay somewhere depending on availability, the area, how long you were staying etc....
However I wouldn't think per diem would have covered a stay in a trump resort.
I believe there is a quote in the article that complaints were raised because they couldn't afford the food at the resort on their per diem.
I'd really like to hear the excuse for why military personnel had to use trump's properties as opposed to a local barracks.
Depending on the personel, availability of bilitting, they may have received per diem. When you go on temporary tdy, youre not required to stay in barracks. They are occupied by permenantly stationed personel. There are both officers and enlisted berthing that is like a hotel you pay for, and youre ususally given per diem to stay somewhere depending on availability, the area, how long you were staying etc....
However I wouldn't think per diem would have covered a stay in a trump resort.
We really did elect a 1980s corporate movie villain.
The worst part is that it was obvious who he was before the election and half the country was good with that :<
46%
He did not receive a popular mandate. Never forget that or gloss it over and give him more support than he actually has.
People who saw who he was and couldn't be bothered to vote fall into that camp, too, imo.
Keep in mind that there was a dedicated propaganda network, aided by the mainstream media and the fucking FBI, trying to portray his opponent to be as corrupt, if not more, than he was.
TLDR: DoJ declares Congress can't sue the President without permission of the President.
ie, Oversight? Fuck that.
It was a low bar to clear to get a flat out worse Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. Looks like Trump picked the right Barr for the job.
He has no authority to say that?
Didn't stop him doing it.
And as Cornell Law professor Josh Chafetz pointed out later in the article, it's not about winning. It's about dragging this on 15 more months.
The House might impeach, but the Senate won't convict. So the only threat is that something damaging destroys Trump’s chances. If that doesn't come out until after the second Wednesday in November next year, too fucking late.
That's all this is now. Delay, hope you get past the point where it even matters anymore.
But it's still pretty brazen to declare "Not only is the President above the law, he's also above accountability by Congress."
TLDR: DoJ declares Congress can't sue the President without permission of the President.
ie, Oversight? Fuck that.
It was a low bar to clear to get a flat out worse Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. Looks like Trump picked the right Barr for the job.
He has no authority to say that?
Didn't stop him doing it.
And as Cornell Law professor Josh Chafetz pointed out later in the article, it's not about winning. It's about dragging this on 15 more months.
The House might impeach, but the Senate won't convict. So the only threat is that something damaging destroys Trump’s chances. If that doesn't come out until after the second Wednesday in November next year, too fucking late.
That's all this is now. Delay, hope you get past the point where it even matters anymore.
But it's still pretty brazen to declare "Not only is the President above the law, he's also above accountability by Congress."
Note quite. Barr is declaring the President above the law and all forms of accountability by Congress, save impeachment. Knowing full well that the Senate won't impeach.
But if they somehow did, I'm sure Barr would argue that the President is above that, too.
TLDR: DoJ declares Congress can't sue the President without permission of the President.
ie, Oversight? Fuck that.
It was a low bar to clear to get a flat out worse Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. Looks like Trump picked the right Barr for the job.
He has no authority to say that?
Didn't stop him doing it.
And as Cornell Law professor Josh Chafetz pointed out later in the article, it's not about winning. It's about dragging this on 15 more months.
The House might impeach, but the Senate won't convict. So the only threat is that something damaging destroys Trump’s chances. If that doesn't come out until after the second Wednesday in November next year, too fucking late.
That's all this is now. Delay, hope you get past the point where it even matters anymore.
But it's still pretty brazen to declare "Not only is the President above the law, he's also above accountability by Congress."
Note quite. Barr is declaring the President above the law and all forms of accountability by Congress, save impeachment. Knowing full well that the Senate won't impeach.
But if they somehow did, I'm sure Barr would argue that the President is above that, too.
Which is bananapants crazy from a purely legal/political perspective.
"We want to make sure that the President didn't accept a gift valued at $22."
"Yeah, no, you're going to have to impeach him."
Posts
It's less that the orders aren't being followed (though Possum is correct in that people willing to openly defy Trump have been purged), and more that the orders are being issued.
This is like that scene from Downfall. Just with less self-introspection, and more Nazis.
"Chairman Cummings and Nadler are launching investigations into the president's promotion of his Doral property for the G7 next year and VP Pence's stay at a Trump property in Ireland last week, per committee release."
- Josh Dawsey is a WaPo White House reporter.
I mean, it shouldn't shock anyone that the President may have CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY BROKEN THE LAW, but I'm also not holding my breath that these investigations are going to do anything, as with any of the past ones. Like the clear cut "it's the fucking law" one over tax returns. Congressman Neal asked for them at least as early as May. Lawsuit filed in early July. And unless Congress and the media are sitting on it, there's been nothing. For a legal action for which there is no real nuance (at least as far as the wording of the law is concerned).
Glad to see they're making noise. Wish that noise resulted in a little more substance.
They conclude with impeachment, which won't even be taken up by the Senate if it passes the House. Aside from keeping how corrupt Trump is in the news cycle they don't have the power to do much. Even then, it risks just normalizing the behavior.
Theyre kind of fucking that up too
Honestly, I don't expect them to.
Come next November, they're either going to be folded without completion (because he won't be President), or they're going to die in the following January, because I can't really see Trump winning re-election without taking back the House. I know it's possible, but I don't expect it. And even if he doesn't, I just see them wanting to drag it on indefinitely as a means of political theatre to prove to their base they're doing something.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this leads to something significant. I hope that Trump's crimes are exposed, and he's indicted for any charges he hasn't passed the statute of limitations on, almost immediately.
But I'm not counting on it.
Impeachment proceedings are an open question, since it's debatable if the authority for scheduling them lies with the Chief Justice (as they run the show)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'd like to think the Federal government could charge trump for what is effectively embezzlement of federal funds and then sue the fuck out of him for the sheer graft he's made a cornerstone of his administration.
Ya we're going to figure out where this country is come next november. Either trump gets re-elected and they take the house or he gets ousted and Democrats keep control. I really don't see it going another way, one side is going to win big and the other lose big. We're at a crossroads here as a country.
I think they could. I'm just not sure they will.
I'm fully expecting "Now it's time for the country to heal" blanket armistice, like what we got with Obama for Bush.
It's pretty clear by the fact that too many Democratic lawmakers don't think it's worth going after Trump now (still 80+ opposed by my last count). I'm not sure they'll be any more in favor of legal action against a former President, or will argue that "setting a precedent" to go after politicians that have concluded their terms is a slippery slope.
Heck, Biden, the frontrunner, is on record as saying that impeachment would be divisive.
Hope I'm wrong. Hope any and every fucker that's broken the law gets the full weight of it put on their neck. I just am not betting on it.
Yeah no. Obama tried to be the peace maker, heal the divide and deal with the clusterfuck of problems that were assailing the US and it got him two years of shenanigans from folks who had no interest in co-operation and I can't imagine that the republicans will be any more ammenable to co-operating if they get ousted in 2020.
Hell, this might actually be the greatest thing about the trump presidency: the end of looking the other way on obvious fuckmuppetry from the white house.
If we’re lucky.
God forbid Dems win and decide not to fix all the systems Trump, McConnell, and the GOP have broken in some futile attempts to “move forward” or some such bullshit, except next time the GOP gets in the Oval Office they’ll probably be more competent than Trump but now armed with how much they can break the system and no one will give a shit, and then break the system further.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Natasha is with Politico
Meanwhile, the impeachment investigation into Trump is set to be formalized next week. The judiciary committee are expected to vote on Wednesday to define the exact scope of the investigation.
Kyle is also with Politico
Between this and how quiet the impeachment investigation was over the recess I’m wondering how many other investigations might be going on that we’re simply not hearing about yet.
I found it equal parts funny and sad that there are records of one particular guy texting a friend to complain that his per diem allowance couldn’t cover the cost of food and drink at the place.
Depending on the personel, availability of bilitting, they may have received per diem. When you go on temporary tdy, youre not required to stay in barracks. They are occupied by permenantly stationed personel. There are both officers and enlisted berthing that is like a hotel you pay for, and youre ususally given per diem to stay somewhere depending on availability, the area, how long you were staying etc....
However I wouldn't think per diem would have covered a stay in a trump resort.
The airforce is full of lunatic conservative nutjobs so they probably wanted to stay there on their own outside of any coercion by the administration.
I want to believe the Scottish sheep festival causing a problem is a real thing that happened.
I believe there is a quote in the article that complaints were raised because they couldn't afford the food at the resort on their per diem.
Yeah, it didn’t. Politico mentioned that.
We really did elect a 1980s corporate movie villain.
The worst part is that it was obvious who he was before the election and half the country was good with that :<
46%
He did not receive a popular mandate. Never forget that or gloss it over and give him more support than he actually has.
Hoggish Greedly is from the 90s.
Edit: oh you typed corporate, I misread that as cartoon.
People who saw who he was and couldn't be bothered to vote fall into that camp, too, imo.
Greedly gets a redemption arc, anyways.
To be fair, I had the same thought...
Keep in mind that there was a dedicated propaganda network, aided by the mainstream media and the fucking FBI, trying to portray his opponent to be as corrupt, if not more, than he was.
46% of those that voted. Depending on how you view the will of the non-voter, only about a third of the country actually agrees with Trump.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/doj-claims-congress-cant-use-federal-court-to-enforce-subpoena-for-trumps-tax-returns/amp/
TLDR: DoJ declares Congress can't sue the President without permission of the President.
ie, Oversight? Fuck that.
It was a low bar to clear to get a flat out worse Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. Looks like Trump picked the right Barr for the job.
He has no authority to say that?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Didn't stop him doing it.
And as Cornell Law professor Josh Chafetz pointed out later in the article, it's not about winning. It's about dragging this on 15 more months.
The House might impeach, but the Senate won't convict. So the only threat is that something damaging destroys Trump’s chances. If that doesn't come out until after the second Wednesday in November next year, too fucking late.
That's all this is now. Delay, hope you get past the point where it even matters anymore.
But it's still pretty brazen to declare "Not only is the President above the law, he's also above accountability by Congress."
Note quite. Barr is declaring the President above the law and all forms of accountability by Congress, save impeachment. Knowing full well that the Senate won't impeach.
But if they somehow did, I'm sure Barr would argue that the President is above that, too.
Which is bananapants crazy from a purely legal/political perspective.
"We want to make sure that the President didn't accept a gift valued at $22."
"Yeah, no, you're going to have to impeach him."
Barr is the worst fucking person.