Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

prawnsambo · 28-11-2018 01:03PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely agree , absent irrefutable evidence of Trumps personal involvement in the activities (and even then it's doubtful).

It would have to be irrefutable alright. But it also depends on how many are swept up in the inquiry as well. If (for example) senior members of the GOP are caught up in it, then all bets are off.

FreudianSlippers · 28-11-2018 01:04PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely agree , absent irrefutable evidence of Trumps personal involvement in the activities (and even then it's doubtful).

The bottom line is that Trump still has an 85%/90% popularity rating among GOP voters.

Until that level drops significantly (25%+ at least) the GOP will not flinch.

The question is though - What exactly does Trump have to do or be proven to have done to shift that figure , given its stability over the last 2 years in the face of a torrent of examples of his utter corruption and ineptitude ???

I do genuinely still believe that there are enough rational people in the GOP that support would drop significantly if he was found to have perjured himself or colluded with Russia. I think the traditional Republicans (those that are maybe not sold on his tactics but don't mind the results) would turn on him in the case of perjury and the staunch Trump supporters (let's be honest... in the US these are mainly rednecks and those of a lower intellectual capacity) would flip if there was evidence of collusion with the Russians.

prawnsambo · 28-11-2018 01:06PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I do genuinely still believe that there are enough rational people in the GOP that support would drop significantly if he was found to have perjured himself or colluded with Russia. I think the traditional Republicans (those that are maybe not sold on his tactics but don't mind the results) would turn on him in the case of perjury and the staunch Trump supporters (let's be honest... in the US these are mainly rednecks and those of a lower intellectual capacity) would flip if there was evidence of collusion with the Russians.

I wouldn't be too sure of your last assertion. The whole point of the WITCH HUNT and NO COLLUSION screams from the twitter machine is to put enough doubt in the minds of said supporters that they would just reject anything that comes out of the inquiry.

FreudianSlippers · 28-11-2018 01:07PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The impeachment would be done by the House. It would only go to the Senate to be heard as a trial, if the House voted to impeach. So in that context, with impeachment being basically an indictment but not a verdict, the House might well impeach, although that is looking less likely as the Dems might rouse the Trump base more than they'd want to by going down that road. I think the Dems will more likely use the Committee system to surface as much post-election wrongdoing as they can, thereby making their case to the electorate before 2020, rather than creating a Senate trial that will definitely not find Trump guilty.

Trump will run for another term.

I'm not so sure about that. Remember that there are a lot of Republican senators that have kept an arm's length distance from Trump - sure they haven't denounced his actions, but they aren't totally rowing in either.

People like Ryan would jump ship almost immediately I think - to most of these guys in Congress, re-election and their own career is the only thing they care about.

FreudianSlippers · 28-11-2018 01:08PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure of your last assertion. The whole point of the WITCH HUNT and NO COLLUSION screams from the twitter machine is to put enough doubt in the minds of said supporters that they would just reject anything that comes out of the inquiry.

I agree - the collusion would have to be undeniable to get the lowest-rung of Trump supporters to turn on him... and even then he wouldn't lose them all. But I don't think his approval within the GOP would be even 50% if he was found to have perjured himself or colluded.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2018 01:10PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely agree , absent irrefutable evidence of Trumps personal involvement in the activities (and even then it's doubtful).

I literally mean no matter what Mueller finds.

Mueller could have recordings of Trump and Putin openly conspiring and nothing would happen. Rs would shout Fake News Witch hunt, pundits would ask if Treason is really a crime when you think about it, there are arguments on both sides, clearly partisan, disgusting allegations by Dems, butter emails etc.

spacecoyote · 28-11-2018 01:12PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Oh, I've absolutely no doubt that there is now clear evidence of GRU involvement. However, this clear evidence only came out after the election, so unless it can be proven that Stone etc. knew or suspected that they were dealing with the Russians back in the March to July 2016 timeframe, they have plausible deniability.

As to whether they should have known and/or failed to ask... I reckon that's a different legal point, and if that is a crime, then many organisations who used the Wikileaks dumps could equally be accused.

Did Trump, in essence, not already give up the game on that front though with his infamous pre-election speech asking Russia to find/release the emails?

Itssoeasy · 28-11-2018 01:14PM

The manafort and stone stuff from last night show me that stupid watergate is still going strong. The fact that Rudolph gulianni himself is a named source for the NYT article is brilliant. Trump can't say it's fake news now unless he wants to throw him under the bus. I mean mueller must be sitting there thinking "this can't be this easy can it?"

It was suggested ages ago that mueller didn't need written or spoken answers(neither are easy to get through honestly) to keep the probe going. But if mueller let manafort still contact the trump legal team and tell them what he knew and trump and his legal team wrote the written answers based on stuff that wasn't true then it's a masterstroke by mueller.

robinph · 28-11-2018 01:15PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

From a moral standpoint, you may well be correct. However, a successful criminal prosecution would require proof of intent to commit an actual crime. Which goes back to the question, did they know that they were dealing with the Russians via Wiki leaks? I don't think arguing that they should have known will cut it, especially as even the CIA/FBI didn't know that (although they suspected it) before July 2016.

I don't think they need to have known that they were dealing with Russians for it to be illegal, just that they were not Americans. Assange is not American, therefore it was illegal collusion with a foreigner during the election.

TomOnBoard · 28-11-2018 01:15PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well the DNC have to have known since they were working to plug the leaks within a month of the hack happening. It would have been clear to the consultants where the hacks originated from. The GRU tried to hide this by creating the Guccifer 2.0 persona.

As for whether Stone et al knew where the data came from, well that's up to Mueller to prove. But there is lots of circumstantial evidence that we know of and lots of links between individuals in the Trump campaign and Russia. George Papadopolous, Kushner and Don Jr. and of course Paul Manafort. The latter being a partner of Stone in his lobbying firm.

The only thing the DNC knew in June 2016 was that they had been hacked by Guccifer 2.0. At that time, Guccifer 2.0 was thought to be a Romanian hacker. He told reporters to go to DC Leaks to get access to the e-mails. Wikileaks only started leaking further emails in the latter part of July, during the DNC Convention.

I agree that all this is for Mueller to report/prove. He hasn't done so yet, and that is why I am troubled by the Cors I development discussed some pages back.

FreudianSlippers · 28-11-2018 01:17PM

robinph wrote: »

I don't think they need to have known that they were dealing with Russians for it to be illegal, just that they were not Americans. Assange is not American, therefore it was illegal collusion with a foreigner during the election.

In this case there are two distinct charges that can be brought: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and/or Conspiracy against the United States. Regardless of who they conspired with, the first charge could be brought.

prawnsambo · 28-11-2018 01:17PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I literally mean no matter what Mueller finds.

Mueller could have recordings of Trump and Putin openly conspiring and nothing would happen. Rs would shout Fake News Witch hunt, pundits would ask if Treason is really a crime when you think about it, there are arguments on both sides, clearly partisan, disgusting allegations by Dems, butter emails etc.

Whatever about his base, the senate is a different matter. What intrigues me about the Mueller investigation is how intricate it is, how it's moving like a chess game and what the collection of all the pawns suggests in terms of isolating and exposing those at the centre. We're almost forgetting about some of the people who've been swept up in the early stages like Mike Flynn. If he's a pawn, then there are some very big pieces yet to fall.

TomOnBoard · 28-11-2018 01:21PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Remember that there are a lot of Republican senators that have kept an arm's length distance from Trump - sure they haven't denounced his actions, but they aren't totally rowing in either.

People like Ryan would jump ship almost immediately I think - to most of these guys in Congress, re-election and their own career is the only thing they care about.

I do agree that, depending on how the Dems play it in the House, Trump could become highly toxic to Reps who .may decide to get a moral backbone and dump him for 2020. However, there's going to need to be some conversion for that to happen

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2018 01:25PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

We're almost forgetting about some of the people who've been swept up in the early stages like Mike Flynn. If he's a pawn, then there are some very big pieces yet to fall.

Oh, I agree. When I say "nothing will happen" I mean the the Republicans in the Senate will not impeach Trump under any circumstances.

Lots of Trump administration folks are going to jail. Nixon's administration racked up 55 criminal convictions and 15 prison sentences, and I think Trump will break that record.

Bigly.

Leroy42 · 28-11-2018 01:27PM

I think talk of his base is overblown. His base makes up about 30%, 35% maybe. They will not change their view no matter what, so it is pointless making any decisions based on the impact it may have on the base. They have shown that he can say/do just about anything and it won't make a bit of difference.

But that base is nowhere close to being sufficient for either Trump himself of the GOP. The midterms showed, definitively, that Trump is not some super vote catcher that carries all before him. The GOP suffered massive losses, and will continue to do so as Trump has really little left to offer people.

The economy is doing very well at the moment, yet despite this the GOP was hit hard in the recent elections. All the indicators point to a fall off in the economy, but to turn around the vote they need a another significant upturn. We are looking at massive GDP growth % (5% etc). There is no-one claiming that is even probable.

The DNC should simply forget about the Trump base, they are a lost cause to the DNC. Focus on the middle ground, those people willing to actually listen.

TomOnBoard · 28-11-2018 01:30PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think talk of his base is overblown. His base makes up about 30%, 35% maybe. They will not change their view no matter what, so it is pointless making any decisions based on the impact it may have on the base. They have shown that he can say/do just about anything and it won't make a bit of difference.

But that base is nowhere close to being sufficient for either Trump himself of the GOP. The midterms showed, definitively, that Trump is not some super vote catcher that carries all before him. The GOP suffered massive losses, and will continue to do so as Trump has really little left to offer people.

The economy is doing very well at the moment, yet despite this the GOP was hit hard in the recent elections. All the indicators point to a fall off in the economy, but to turn around the vote they need a another significant upturn. We are looking at massive GDP growth % (5% etc). There is no-one claiming that is even probable.

The DNC should simply forget about the Trump base, they are a lost cause to the DNC. Focus on the middle ground, those people willing to actually listen.

Spot on.

Gbear · 28-11-2018 01:32PM

Plenty of Republicans stood with Nixon right up until he legged it, including Bush Snr and Reagan.

I'm just about to start listening to a podcast called Slow Burn, about Watergate, but from what I've gathered from a summary of it is that if the Republicans had held the Senate at the time, it's quite likely that Nixon wouldn't have been successfully impeached. You can rely on maybe a dozen senators to do the right thing, but you probably can't rely on 20+, in any given situation. The party would have to oppose him openly as well, and despite Trump leading the Republicans to one of the worst midterm results in memory, we're not quite there.

I don't know that there's any precedent for unanimity in situations like this, or for generally reaching across party lines to bin an obviously corrupt President, although I don't know if we've quite seen this level of brazen corruption before.

Gbear · 28-11-2018 01:38PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The DNC should simply forget about the Trump base, they are a lost cause to the DNC. Focus on the middle ground, those people willing to actually listen.

That and voter disenfranchisement.

Whether black felons are a long term safe vote, given that they'll probably have a poor turnout, the margins are so low that it may well turn Florida into solidly, if narrowly democratic, and if they can keep them engaged (perhaps those who've lost such rights will be more likely to appreciate them), maybe it'll be safe blue for a generation.

I wonder in the US if they're a bit more open to electoral reform than the UK. Labour are almost as likely to lose out with PR voting systems as the Tories, but perhaps the Democrats would be more sanguine about diversifying the pool of parties available, safe in the knowledge that ultimately progressiveism is the dominant social ethic.

Equally they might just reverse gerrymandering in their favour, but independent and impartial drawing of constituency boundaries would still favour them, albeit a bit less.

duploelabs · 28-11-2018 01:40PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think that there will be no impeachment, the Republicans in the Senate will never go for it no matter what Mueller finds.

Trump will not quit, he will run in 2020 because he is safer inside the White House than outside.

I think the Mueller findings will come before the run up to 2020, not to mention the house inquiries to Trump's tax returns etc etc and the GOP will drop him for Pence to have a run at the hot seat

everlast75 · 28-11-2018 01:47PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think talk of his base is overblown. His base makes up about 30%, 35% maybe. They will not change their view no matter what, so it is pointless making any decisions based on the impact it may have on the base. They have shown that he can say/do just about anything and it won't make a bit of difference.

But that base is nowhere close to being sufficient for either Trump himself of the GOP. The midterms showed, definitively, that Trump is not some super vote catcher that carries all before him. The GOP suffered massive losses, and will continue to do so as Trump has really little left to offer people.

The economy is doing very well at the moment, yet despite this the GOP was hit hard in the recent elections. All the indicators point to a fall off in the economy, but to turn around the vote they need a another significant upturn. We are looking at massive GDP growth % (5% etc). There is no-one claiming that is even probable.

The DNC should simply forget about the Trump base, they are a lost cause to the DNC. Focus on the middle ground, those people willing to actually listen.

You also have to ask yourself.

Are things getting better for Trump, or worse.Each and every day there is (at least) one more scandal.

The guy is a walking car crash. There is no one he will not offend (save Russia).

That "solid" base comprises of certain groups of people, but if that's all he has - he's goosed.

And what have we so far;
He is already an un-named co-conspirator in 2 felony charges.
If he becomes the same in another charge against Manafort, he will not be able to shake that off as easily.
If he grants Manafort a pardon, or fires Mueller, the gig will truly be up.

We have Pecker, the CFO of Trump inc and his accountant, McGhan, Cohen all co-operating with the FBI/SNDY/Mueller.

We haven't even gotten to the subpoena power landing in January.

There is a reason his tweets are becoming even more and more crazy.

The walls are closing in.

Leroy42 · 28-11-2018 01:48PM

duploelabs wrote: »

I think the Mueller findings will come before the run up to 2020, not to mention the house inquiries to Trump's tax returns etc etc and the GOP will drop him for Pence to have a run at the hot seat

Yes, losing the house, and by such a significant amount, is a major problem for Trump. Like all POTUS, losing the house creates problems in terms of the political agenda, but for Trump it means far more in terms of him personally.

The DNC now will have control over the committees. Imagine not having a GOP member like Nunes playing protection for him from now on.

Trump has tried to sidetrack the election into talking about the Senate, but in reality nothing significant has changed (DNC should be disappointed but the GOP have nothing to be particularly happy about, although relief might be the order of the day). They always had control of that and one or two more won't get them much further. It will that a few more GOP senators can now vote against him in the knowledge that they still have the numbers.

It all spells bad news for Trump. You can bet that the DNC will not go after any smoking gun looking for impeachment (it will never get through the Senate) but instead look to uncover as much as possible to paint the picture of Trump being an elite, swamp dweller, with ties to other elites and lots of shady dealings.

TomOnBoard · 28-11-2018 01:49PM

duploelabs wrote: »

I think the Mueller findings will come before the run up to 2020, not to mention the house inquiries to Trump's tax returns etc etc and the GOP will drop him for Pence to have a run at the hot seat

If the GOP were to drop Trump, and assuming Trump didn't resign, Pence would be toast as well.

Also, I see Judge Napolitano on Fox says that Mueller stitched in guilty pleas by Manafort to crimes in 3 states in the Sept/Oct plea deal, so that if Trump decides to pardon him on the Federal stuff, those States can incarcerate him. Napolitano sees it as an extraordinary and highly intelligent t move on Mue!ler's part.

Penn · 28-11-2018 01:57PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

If the GOP were to drop Trump, and assuming Trump didn't resign, Pence would be toast as well.

I doubt there's anything directly implicating Pence, but the fact he seems to have been chosen/suggested by Manafort, it'd be hard to wash that stink off him.

If the GOP were to drop Trump, I can see them trying to clean house. They'll still retain Trump's base because they're never going to vote Democrat anyway, and they could pull a few moderate Republicans back by showing how they actually drained the swamp.

amandstu · 28-11-2018 01:58PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It all spells bad news for Trump. You can bet that the DNC will not go after any smoking gun looking for impeachment (it will never get through the Senate) but instead look to uncover as much as possible to paint the picture of Trump being an elite, swamp dweller, with ties to other elites and lots of shady dealings.

A real witch hunt with a real witch:D

Ozymandius2011 · 28-11-2018 02:09PM

Trumps greatest legacy may be reshaping the courts. So far despite stalling tactics by Democrats, 84 of his judicial nominees have been confirmed. Today came the news that an Obama appointed judge from the 3 Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Pennsylvania, is to assume Senior Status (semi retirement). That means there is now a 6-6 draw of Republican/Democrat appointees among the active judges on the 3rd Circuit court, which will become a 7-6 conservative majority if and when Paul Matey is confirmed (he had a hearing in November). Senior status also opens a vacancy on the court which Trump can fill.

He has also filled 2 of the 8 vacancies he inherited on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over 20% of the US population and the entire west coast, Idaho, Arizona and Montana. Trump has had many run-ins with the 9th Circuit which blocked his travel ban for over a year until SCOTUS upheld it in modified form. He has nominated another 6 nominees, and if they are filled, while the liberals will still control the court, it will be 16-13 instead of 16-7 among active judges as now. If he gets a second term he might have a chance to flip it to the Right.

The 11th Circuit is next most likely to flip. It covers Florida, Georgia and Alabama. At present it has a tie, following Trumps successful appointments of Britt Grant and Kevin Newsom, but there are no vacancies. If a liberal judge retires that means a conservative majority which Trump can build on by nominating and getting confirmed a replacement.

Its worth recalling that when Obama became president, the majority of Circuit Courts of Appeal had conservative majorities (I think all but one in fact). When he left office after appointing over 300 judges, liberals had majorities on 8 of the 12 Circuit Appeals (all except the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Circuits). It will likely soon be a 7-5 split because of the 3rd Circuit. Also watch the 4th Circuit (which includes Virginia and NC), which has been also a thorn in Trumps side over the travel ban. Trump inherited a 10-6 liberal majority there but has cut into it so its now 9-6, which one vacancy for which Trump has nominated a replacement to. Immigration is a very important issue for Trump, and many of his court defeats have been in the Circuit Courts on the coasts for that reason. So packing those courts will be crucial to making his policies like on Sanctuary Cities stick (the 9th Circuit has struck down his cuts to Sanctuary Cities) given that SCOTUS only hears 80 cases a year compared to 80,000 in the CCOAs.

everlast75 · 28-11-2018 02:15PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Trumps greatest legacy may be reshaping the courts. So far despite stalling tactics by Democrats, 84 of his judicial nominees have been confirmed. Today came the news that an Obama appointed judge from the 3 Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Pennsylvania, is to assume Senior Status (semi retirement). That means there is now a 6-6 draw of Republican/Democrat appointees among the active judges on the 3rd Circuit court, which will become a 7-6 conservative majority if and when Paul Matey is confirmed (he had a hearing in November). Senior status also opens a vacancy on the court which Trump can fill.

He has also filled 2 of the 8 vacancies he inherited on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over 20% of the US population and the entire west coast, Idaho, Arizona and Montana. Trump has had many run-ins with the 9th Circuit which blocked his travel ban for over a year until SCOTUS upheld it in modified form. He has nominated another 6 nominees, and if they are filled, while the liberals will still control the court, it will be 16-13 instead of 16-7 among active judges as now. If he gets a second term he might have a chance to flip it to the Right.

The 11th Circuit is next most likely to flip. It covers Florida, Georgia and Alabama. At present it has a tie, following Trumps successful appointments of Britt Grant and Kevin Newsom, but there are no vacancies. If a liberal judge retires that means a conservative majority which Trump can build on by nominating and getting confirmed a replacement.

Its worth recalling that when Obama became president, the majority of Circuit Courts of Appeal had conservative majorities (I think all but one in fact). When he left office after appointing over 300 judges, liberals had majorities on 8 of the 12 Circuit Appeals (all except the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Circuits). It will likely soon be a 7-5 split because of the 3rd Circuit. Also watch the 4th Circuit, which has been also a thorn in Trumps side over the travel ban. Trump inherited a 10-6 liberal majority there but has cut into it so its now 9-6, which one vacancy which Trump has nominated a replacement to. Immigration is a very important issue for Trump, and many of his court defeats have been in the Circuit Courts on the coasts for that reason. So packing those courts will be crucial to making his policies like on Sanctuary Cities stick (the 9th Circuit has struck down his cuts to Sanctuary Cities) given that SCOTUS only hears 80 cases a year compared to 80,000 in the CCOAs.

If you are talking about successful legacies, I can imagine why you would zone in on Judges - as it's the only one that could be called "successful".

However, I think you'll find that it will more correctly be McConnell's legacy.

Christy42 · 28-11-2018 02:16PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Trumps greatest legacy may be reshaping the courts. So far despite stalling tactics by Democrats, 84 of his judicial nominees have been confirmed. Today came the news that an Obama appointed judge from the 3 Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Pennsylvania, is to assume Senior Status (semi retirement). That means there is now a 6-6 draw of Republican/Democrat appointees among the active judges on the 3rd Circuit court, which will become a 7-6 conservative majority if and when Paul Matey is confirmed (he had a hearing in November). Senior status also opens a vacancy on the court which Trump can fill.

He has also filled 2 of the 8 vacancies he inherited on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over 20% of the US population and the entire west coast, Idaho, Arizona and Montana. Trump has had many run-ins with the 9th Circuit which blocked his travel ban for over a year until SCOTUS upheld it in modified form. He has nominated another 6 nominees, and if they are filled, while the liberals will still control the court, it will be 16-13 instead of 16-7 among active judges as now. If he gets a second term he might have a chance to flip it to the Right.

The 11th Circuit is next most likely to flip. It covers Florida, Georgia and Alabama. At present it has a tie, following Trumps successful appointments of Britt Grant and Kevin Newsom, but there are no vacancies. If a liberal judge retires that means a conservative majority which Trump can build on by nominating and getting confirmed a replacement.

Its worth recalling that when Obama became president, the majority of Circuit Courts of Appeal had conservative majorities (I think all but one in fact). When he left office after appointing over 300 judges, liberals had majorities on 8 of the 12 Circuit Appeals (all except the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Circuits). It will likely soon be a 7-5 split because of the 3rd Circuit. Also watch the 4th Circuit, which has been also a thorn in Trumps side over the travel ban. Trump inherited a 10-6 liberal majority there but has cut into it so its now 9-6, which one vacancy which Trump has nominated a replacement to. Immigration is a very important issue for Trump, and many of his court defeats have been in the Circuit Courts on the coasts for that reason. So packing those courts will be crucial to making his policies like on Sanctuary Cities stick (the 9th Circuit has struck down his cuts to Sanctuary Cities) given that SCOTUS only hears 80 cases a year compared to 80,000 in the CCOAs.

Every president picks conservative/liberal judges as relevant.

As you say Obama left a heavy liberal majority and Trump will leave a conservative majority. The next democrat will leave a liberal majority. (Seriously how has no one seen that such biased appointments is a terrible idea but that is an aside).

If all he can be given credit for is literally a default result of a conservative president. Well it does show how ineffective he has been in terms of doing important things.

You want to know why this was talked about less in the Obama era as he appointed liberal judges? Because it was not worth mentioning. Like getting out of bed. Obama had Obama care to build (which even conservatives were terrified of getting rid of) and building back the economy. Appointing judges was just an expected base line.

Ozymandius2011 · 28-11-2018 02:26PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Every president picks conservative/liberal judges as relevant.

As you say Obama left a heavy liberal majority and Trump will leave a conservative majority. The next democrat will leave a liberal majority. (Seriously how has no one seen that such biased appointments is a terrible idea but that is an aside).

If all he can be given credit for is literally a default result of a conservative president. Well it does show how ineffective he has been in terms of doing important things.

You want to know why this was talked about less in the Obama era as he appointed liberal judges? Because it was not worth mentioning. Like getting out of bed. Obama had Obama care to build (which even conservatives were terrified of getting rid of) and building back the economy. Appointing judges was just an expected base line.

Well I think the DC Circuit could become very important if there is an attempt to impeach Trump. This court has jurisdiction over the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's activities. Presently it has a 7-3 liberal majority with one vacancy (Brett Kavanaugh used to be on it).

prawnsambo · 28-11-2018 02:36PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well I think the DC Circuit could become very important if there is an attempt to impeach Trump. This court has jurisdiction over the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's activities. Presently it has a 7-3 liberal majority with one vacancy (Brett Kavanaugh used to be on it).

I think that this would only come into play if whatever Mueller brings is somewhat ambiguous. No matter what way a judge leans on the political spectrum, the law doesn't allow for political decisions in judgments.

amandstu · 28-11-2018 02:40PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well I think the DC Circuit could become very important if there is an attempt to impeach Trump. This court has jurisdiction over the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's activities. Presently it has a 7-3 liberal majority with one vacancy (Brett Kavanaugh used to be on it).

For the Dems it is an easy calculus. Impeachment is unrealistic barring a collapse in T's core support and the alternative course of tying the Repubs into supporting what they hope to show up historically as a low point in American political life should give them oxygen for the next generation and even do for the Republican brand for good (not necessarily a good thing but deserved** I would say.)

** so few Republicans having attempted to defend basic decency through all this.

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Comments