Quote (EndlessSky @ Jun 4 2018 10:01pm)

Russia is currently crippled by sanctions. Keep dreaming

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 4 2018 10:06pm)

It's all about that 4D chess crap, doncha know.

Quote (Ghot @ 4 Jun 2018 22:33)

Do you think that a president who quite possibly COULD be the victim of a witch hunt, might talk about pardoning himself?

Quote (Goomshill @ 4 Jun 2018 22:56)

Why do people care if 'trump could pardon himself'?
Its a ridiculous question not just based on it being an implausible hypothetical. Its ridiculous also because of the very nature of what a pardon is: A reprieve for one person. What does it matter what happens to Donald Trump? All a pardon does is spare one person their punishment. A pardon doesn't rewrite a criminal statute, it doesn't set policy. It doesn't matter to me or you or anyone else whatsoever what personally happens to Trump. It matters what the fate of the country is, the politics.

Donald Trump could hypothetically launch a bunch of nukes tomorrow. He won't. We've given him the power thanks to the cold war and expansion of the executive. It matters a lot more if Trump turns the world into a burning cinder and annihilates humanity than whether he personally goes to prison. That's a distinction I made on day 1 after his election when he violated his campaign pledge and said he wouldn't 'lock her up'. Because who the fuck cares if Hillary goes to prison? Why should that matter. Its the greater geopolitical fallout that matters, and tearing the temple down to pointlessly try to crucify one woman would have been madness. And Trump vindicated me when it dropped his pretense with no delay and said he was just kidding all along, fuck the trump cult. He made the same calculation Gerald Ford made, the country didn't need to get dragged through the muck to go after one person, Nixon was already dead in the political sphere.

So tell me, why should I care if Trump could technically commit a crime, pardon himself, and then avoid prosecution? Because the check upon the executive is impeachment not criminal prosecution, and the fundamental political question of Trump's legitimacy as president and russiaburger scandal isn't moved an inch by whether or not he could hypothetically pardon himself even if something was proven. If it turned out he was really blowing Putin in a back alley in exchange for the help from spooky russian hackers, then he'd get immediately impeached and his political movement would implode, and any last minute pardon would be irrelevant, he'd be dead in the political sphere. And if nobody can find muh collusion, then its a stupid hypothetical because he'd never need to pardon himself. And if Mueller tried to ignore his scope and mandate of russian interference in the 2016 election and instead try to go on a fishing expedition for financial misdealings from the 1990s, then Trump would not be impeached, nor would he even get indicted because he can't be indicted, so he'd never pardon himself. And then Mueller would get ousted by the republicans. Lets hope Mueller isn't a partisan hack.

Quote (ThatAlex @ Jun 4 2018 10:13pm)

It matters because it could launch our country into a Constitutional crisis. We can't necessarily count on this Congress to impeach the President if he breaks the law and/or commits impeachable offenses. Conventional political rules do not always apply to Trump and his supporters, and our democratic-republic may have to depend more on the rule of law rather than the political process of impeachment to provide justice for any potential criminal activities.

On the fundamental level, do you not see an issue with the chief executive of a democratic-republic using their power to avoid punishment for potential criminal activity? I see your point about the grand scheme of things, but checks and balances are a cornerstone of our government and pardoning yourself is a blatant violation of our democratic values and culture.

Quote (ThatAlex @ Jun 5 2018 12:13am)

Yes. I think the vast majority of the Russian collusion stuff is a witch hunt and anti-Russian propaganda. However, in the course of his presidency and the Special Counsel investigation, I also think it is possible that Trump and his associates broke laws and committed potential impeachable offenses.

"The cover up is worse than the crime" sort of thing.



It matters because it could launch our country into a Constitutional crisis. We can't necessarily count on this Congress to impeach the President if he breaks the law and/or commits impeachable offenses. Conventional political rules do not always apply to Trump and his supporters, and our democratic-republic may have to depend more on the rule of law rather than the political process of impeachment to provide justice for any potential criminal activities.

On the fundamental level, do you not see an issue with the chief executive of a democratic-republic using their power to avoid punishment for potential criminal activity? I see your point about the grand scheme of things, but checks and balances are a cornerstone of our government and pardoning yourself is a blatant violation of our democratic values and culture.

Quote

We can't necessarily count on this Congress to impeach the President if he breaks the law and/or commits impeachable offenses. Conventional political rules do not always apply to Trump and his supporters, and our democratic-republic may have to depend more on the rule of law rather than the political process of impeachment to provide justice for any potential criminal activities.

Quote (Goomshill @ 4 Jun 2018 23:19)

Again that's a stupid hypothetical. He can't be indicted, so he can't be prosecuted, and he would never be in a position to pardon himself. There is no scenario in which Trump is put into a position to pardon himself where a constitutional crisis hasn't already occurred long ago. If somehow there was damning evidence of a crime, he'd get impeached. The republicans aren't going to defend him if there was proof. If a prosecutor tried to pursue a case against him even when the constitution says he can't and when there's not a smoking gun, then we'd be in a constitutional crisis from the overreach already, let alone anything Trump did.

Stop constructing stupid hypothetical scenarios that require irrational actors to be snidely whiplash villains trying to abuse the letter of the law to the breaking point. If that was the case, then an armed insurrection would occur and the law would be thrown out. But that won't occur, because that's not the case, and its a dumb hypothetical. That's why Giuliani makes a good point by using hyperbole to show how the law works- Trump could shoot Comey and couldn't be indicted, but that wouldn't matter because he'd get instantly impeached. That's the constitutionally prescribed recourse. Any question about jurisdiction or pardons is stupid, the executive is a political position held in check by a political congress.

On a fundamental level, I don't see why the implausible and irrelevant hypothetical possibility that a president could pardon himself is supposed to worry me any more than the implausible and very relevant hypothetical possibility that a president could initiate a nuclear apocalypse on a moments notice. Why should whether Trump faces prison or not in some contrived scenario matter more to me than whether I'm atomized by russian MAD? Because both scenarios are dumb hypotheticals


again: The constitution lays out how noxious presidents can be removed from power. Trial by congress in impeachment is that recourse. The judiciary trying to unseat him via personal criminal prosecution is not. They don't hold that power. If the will of the people in their elected executive and will of their elected representatives in congress was at odds with jurists and prosecutors in the judicial branch trying to overthrow a president, then congress has the power to impeach the bloody judges and unseat attorneys. The constitution isn't opaque on those powers. Did Taney try to prosecute Lincoln for violating habeus corpus in ex parte merryman and have him removed from office? Who was going to arrest him, the executive branch guys who enforce the law or the military he was leading?

Quote (ThatAlex @ Jun 5 2018 12:38am)

It's not clear if a sitting President can be indicted or not. It is possible. This is what Kenneth Starr had to say on the subject:

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties."

Quote

Climate Change Has Run Its Course
Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.
...
A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.
...
Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 4 2018 11:17pm)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876



I think we could use a new generation of climate purists, to rescue our need to address a very real global issue from the seal-clapping political activists.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 4 2018 10:58pm)

In fact, nobody thought Trump was going to win, Putin included
that's a major point in understanding the dynamics and motivations, because it explains well how Putin was interfering to hurt Hillary in tit-for-tat retaliation against her 2011 violations of sovereignty against him, but was not motivated by trying to 'help Trump'. And thats why the nuance of 'help Trump' vs 'hurt Hillary' is something that politically motivated actors in the IC and media keep spinning wildly. They aren't the same. If Putin just assumed Hillary was going to easily win anyway, then pulling down her pants during the 2016 election was his power play to rattle her cage and Trump wasn't even a real factor in his decision making.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jun 4 2018 08:46pm)

mueller, rosenstein, comey, mccabe - those guys might be lifelong republicans, but they represent the "george w bush/mccain-ian" strain of republicanism, which is completely different from trump's.

establishment republicans and most dems are globalists and working towards the same goals. they give the same answers to the big questions and only differ in details, or on minor fields like abortion/church attendance/political correctness/affirmative action. despite those for-show-differences, establishment democrats and republicans really have been two sides of the same coin for several decades. trump is the outsider who came along and had the audacity to take power away from them, and to challenge their worldview. for this transgression, this old establishment from inside both dems and reps is trying everything in their power to stop trump by putting obstacles in his way on every single step he makes.