Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Fun times coming.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Fun times coming.

I double down as to Bolton. That which Trump, or anyone, does which effects an adverse result to him gets my applause.

Except in the criminal realm. If Trump seeks to indict Bolton, may Trump himself be indicted instead (hardly improbable as it is).

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I double down as to Bolton. That which Trump, or anyone, does which effects an adverse result to him gets my applause.

Except in the criminal realm. If Trump seeks to indict Bolton, may Trump himself be indicted instead (hardly improbable as it is).

If a Dem wins and realigns the DOJ, he will be indicted. The question is whether that Dem goes the Gerald Ford route and pardons him.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

If a Dem wins and realigns the DOJ, he will be indicted. The question is whether that Dem goes the Gerald Ford route and pardons him.

I’d be in the greatest hurry to put him in the rear view mirror. I understand some hard-on doj lawyers will push for that, but I’d hope sensible real people and political insiders would be able to shut down that sort of overkill before need for a pardon. “Lock [em] up” is a dangerous and stupid approach to politics and an empowerment of the worst sort of officious rule custodian prosecutors (arguably unethically abusing discretion).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Fun times coming.

What are the odds he tries to get House Managers "arrested" tonight during the STU? He at least threatens it, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’d be in the greatest hurry to put him in the rear view mirror. I understand some hard-on doj lawyers will push for that, but I’d hope sensible real people and political insiders would be able to shut down that sort of overkill before need for a pardon. “Lock [em] up” is a dangerous and stupid approach to politics and an empowerment of the worst sort of officious rule custodian prosecutors (arguably unethically abusing discretion).

I agree with you, but there is going to be a lot of pressure, backed by "see what happened when we didn't prosecute the Bush war criminals and the bankers??"

It's going to be a very tough call. I think prosecuting people for their official and/or political acts sets a very dangerous precedent that someone like 45 would gleefully abuse.

And yet, someday there will be a full accounting of all of the gov't money he put in his and his friends' pockets and whatever else he's done to abuse his office. It all needs to come out. But what then?

[Replaced_Texan]

Well, this is a clusterfuck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’d be in the greatest hurry to put him in the rear view mirror. I understand some hard-on doj lawyers will push for that, but I’d hope sensible real people and political insiders would be able to shut down that sort of overkill before need for a pardon. “Lock [em] up” is a dangerous and stupid approach to politics and an empowerment of the worst sort of officious rule custodian prosecutors (arguably unethically abusing discretion).

I disagree completely. Obama took that route with torture and it was a mistake. If there's a clear case that Trump or someone else broke the law in a criminal way, indict them.

BTW, I think you are wrong that DOJ lawyers will push for it. They tend to stay away from politics. It's the political appointees who do that stuff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

What are the odds he tries to get House Managers "arrested" tonight during the STU? He at least threatens it, right?

SOTU will be too scripted, and the audience won't be his groupies. He does that sh*t at rallies.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I agree with you, but there is going to be a lot of pressure, backed by "see what happened when we didn't prosecute the Bush war criminals and the bankers??"

It's going to be a very tough call. I think prosecuting people for their official and/or political acts sets a very dangerous precedent that someone like 45 would gleefully abuse.

And yet, someday there will be a full accounting of all of the gov't money he put in his and his friends' pockets and whatever else he's done to abuse his office. It all needs to come out. But what then?

I don't think the bankers and Bush Admin people are of the same lot. The people who lied us into Iraq killed 200,000 Iraqis and 4000 Americans needlessly. Insanely. The bankers were a mix of greedy shitballs and incompetents. I'm comfortable with prosecuting the former where clear lying could be proven, but not the latter. I think the culpable bankers should simply lose their jobs and be barred from their industry.

Trump should be excoriated by the House and Senate for any attempt at retribution. I think censuring him, as Manchin has suggested, is a good idea. That way, he cannot claim exoneration and play the victim, which he'd need to do in order to start criminal investigations of his enemies in the impeachment. I can't stand Adam Schiff and would love to see him disappear forever, but the man should not be prosecuted for pursuing a valid investigation and impeachment, even if, as is clear, he did it as much for political reasons as he did out of a sense of duty of his office. Even if what Schiff did was nakedly and entirely political, that's how politics works. Trump cannot seek to jail a political opponent for practicing politics. That's banana republic behavior. Trump is a politician, a divisive one, and a controversial one. His brand is battling, and dirty politics, and so everyone has the right to use politics against him. Caveat emptor.

I'm not freaked out about Trump profiting from his office unless he's making govt decisions aimed at personal profit. He should not be allowed to hold govt events at Mar A Lago, and he should be policed to ensure he doesn't give favors to foreign nations in exchange for business advantage in those nations. But all this shit about how the Trump Hotel in DC is a knowing and intentional emoluments violation? Fuck that shit. Those dollars are rounding errors, and it's a waste of time and energy to try to prove intent there. If his businesses make a few hundred million because of his enhanced stature, I don't care. Good for him. Enjoy the gravy, like the Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes have enjoyed huge paydays post-office.

But as I said, if Trump trades anything or steers govt dollars to his businesses, he should be censured and barred from doing so. (I also don't think the Secret Service's leasing space in Trump Tower is a big deal. It's where the guy lived. What was he supposed to do? Move? I think it is, however, quite tacky and cheap to make them pay... He should give them the space for free.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I disagree completely. Obama took that route with torture and it was a mistake. If there's a clear case that Trump or someone else broke the law in a criminal way, indict them.

BTW, I think you are wrong that DOJ lawyers will push for it. They tend to stay away from politics. It's the political appointees who do that stuff.

Give me the fed crim code and four weeks and I'll indict half of Washington. I agree with indicting what is nakedly criminal, but there are very few instances where a politician has done something that is nakedly criminal. There is always some pretext, some explanation, or some mix of politics and official business, that raises the question: "Are we criminalizing politics?"

Criminalizing politics is what strongmen do. It's the kind of shitty behavior Trump would engage in if he could. I think the wall between politicians and prosecutors should be wider than a football field, have a moat beyond it, and after that several electrified fences.

People running around claiming opponents should go to jail is the surest way I can imagine to turn this already delicate republic into a full on fucking joke. The very last thing we need is more lawyers running around accusing people of crimes.

But I fear Adder is correct. We're a nation governed, sadly, by too many lawyers, and they are hammers who only see nails. And our politics is now total war, so I think we're going to see a lot more criminalizing of politics in the future.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think censuring him, as Manchin has suggested, is a good idea.

Why would the GOP senators who won't vote to convict vote for censure? The incentives are basically the same for them, no?

That it was a Dem who proposed is pretty strong evidence it isn't happening too.

I can't stand Adam Schiff

This is such a strange attitude, and, as I've said many times before, strong evidence you consume too much right wing media.

even if, as is clear, he did it as much for political reasons as he did out of a sense of duty of his office.

I'm very confused about what you think impeachment is, if not a political process.

I'm not freaked out about Trump profiting from his office unless he's making govt decisions aimed at personal profit.

He's making gov't decisions aimed at personal profit. He is incapable of doing otherwise.

He should not be allowed to hold govt events at Mar A Lago

He's doing the equivalent on every golf trip and Florida get-away. And every time the Saudi's rent out a floor (or more) at the DC hotel.

But all this shit about how the Trump Hotel in DC is a knowing and intentional emoluments violation? Fuck that shit. Those dollars are rounding errors, and it's a waste of time and energy to try to prove intent there.

Ah, I see, you only care about stuff you don't already know about. Okay.

Enjoy the gravy, like the Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes have enjoyed huge paydays post-office.

There's is a massive difference between post and in office and you know it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Why would the GOP senators who won't vote to convict vote for censure? The incentives are basically the same for them, no?

Alexander and Murkowski already censured him. And his own defense has admitted he did what was accused. Seems a decent way to control him and for the Senate to retain some level of respect. But you're right... It likely won't happen.

This is such a strange attitude, and, as I've said many times before, strong evidence you consume too much right wing media.

Schiff is a tool. It's just that simple. He's that kid in the fraternity you'd blackball for being an officious pain in the ass. He's the high school hall monitor, the turd who'd rat a class mate out for cheating on a geometry exam. He's that impossibly annoying twit who'd argue you with the professor in law school, precluding everyone from otherwise getting out of class early. He's not a sort you could trust, or would want to trust.

And he's madly ambitious. Tracey Flick with a dick.

My dislike of him is entirely personal. He's clearly very good at what he does.

I'm very confused about what you think impeachment is, if not a political process.

It's a political process engaged to effect non-political goals (the removal of criminal actors). What Trump did here was stupid and political. But criminal? Only if you read the rule book as might Javert. The impeachment here was as much if not far more interested in the political goal of removing him in an election year where the Ds could lose than in redressing abuse of power. If he'd done what he did for the purpose of taking out a political enemy who was a Never-Trumper republican (like Romney), rather than a Democratic Presidential candidate, this impeachment would not have been pursued. It wouldn't be sexy enough, and Schiff couldn't make the facile argument that unless removed Trump would collude with foreign powers to steal the 2020 election.

He's making gov't decisions aimed at personal profit. He is incapable of doing otherwise.

He tried with the Mar A Lago event, but the system blocked him. The checks and balances worked. The man's in a reverse panopticon. He can't hum while shitting without the melody being leaked to the public.

What he did in Ukraine was for political, not economic, self-benefit.

He's doing the equivalent on every golf trip and Florida get-away. And every time the Saudi's rent out a floor (or more) at the DC hotel.

The Saudis are buying influence with hotel rent? They have this thing called oil that confers a whole lot more influence than that. They're also cozy with the Israelis, who have a shit ton of influence over Trump.

There's is a massive difference between post and in office and you know it.

The Bushes are a big family and a lot of them, of middling talent at best, made a whole lotta money while HW and W were in office. Biden's family seems to have also done alright for a bunch of people of modest ability.

The guy owns hotels. He's President. Some people are going to use his hotels more when he's President for a variety of reasons. Some are going to avoid using them for similar reasons. It probably washes. (I've never stayed at the Trump hotel in DC. The rates are $100 higher than better hotels nearby, and if I see "Trump" on anything, I imagine it is gaudy and ugly inside. [Though I've heard the bars in Trump Hotel in DC are actually tasteful and pretty nice.])

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He tried with the Mar A Lago event, but the system blocked him. The checks and balances worked.

Again, he does the equivalent nearly every weekend.

ETA:

The guy owns hotels.

Yeah, up until now, Presidents didn't own businesses that weren't in blind trusts, which is itself and issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Alexander and Murkowski already censured him.

Uh, no. That was mild criticism. There's a difference.