Wednesday Night Open Thread: Trumpicide

With every step, Donald Trump comes closer to self-annihilating. An op-ed in The Guardian today, When a president fights the law, there's only ever one winner, calls it Trumpicide:

Donald Trump’s fury at a federal judge who overturned his immigration order betrays his deep – and dangerous – ignorance of the constitution


The true business genius might recognize in Trumpicide a threat to all the other Trump brands: incompetence, much like low poll numbers and TV ratings, could easily undermine a luxury name that is attached to the finest in gold-painted furnishings and decorative hardware.

But most of all, it’s really hard to intimidate the world – and all its judges – when you’ve grown into its laughing stock.

The world knows this emperor has no clothes. He sits alone in his bathrobe in the executive mansion, watching cable television, tweeting his anger at a Constitution designed to thwart him.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Senate Confirms Jeff Sessions as Attorney General | Pres. Pena Nieto Meets With Returning Deportees, Offers Help >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He will not be easy to dislodge (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by smott on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    The GOP is far too craven to impeach.

    And if God forbid we have a terrorist attack on US soil, get ready for Martial Law.

    I'm certain Bannon has that as Step 1 in his playbook.

    That is what I think. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    The GOP is so craven and cowardly they are willing to accept help from Putin and will never do the right thing for the country. They will let the country fall into a complete dystopian dark era before they will relinquish one iota of power.

    I believe martial law (none / 0) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    will be met with 2nd Amendment solutions. Leading to an eventual civil war. The Balkanization of the U.S. will be at hand if he does this.

    Today's executive orders (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    suggest that this will be the outcome.

    McConnell (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    I wanna wait till he hibernates, pull him out of his mud hole by the tail and make turtle soup out of him. So to speak.

    ... has denied the government's request that Judge Robart's stay on Trump's immigration ban be lifted. It shall remain in effect, pending further appeal by federal attorneys.

    Ninth Circuit unanimously rejects (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    govt appeal of the temporary national restraining order against the "travel ban." The Tr*mp Exec Order will continue to be enjoined. It's a 29-page opinion issued "per curiam" (meaning, by the court), indicating both unanimous and the work product of all 3 judges including the conservative, GWB-appointed Judge Clifton.

    Here's a link from which (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    the opinion can be downloaded(29-page PDF). My link above was only to read it.

    We were but 33 seconds apart. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 02:20:45 AM EST
    Great minds think alike. And thank you for posting the actual per curiam opinion.

    Trump KOs (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    Elliot Abrams for second top job at the State Department.  Tillerson's pick, apparently, was going well with Trump until he found out that Abrams trashed him earlier (neither Hillary or Abrams are fit to be President, said Elliot).  Must really have gotten under that thin skin, since guys like Rick Perry (Trump is a cancer on conservatism) ended up in his cabinet.

    Wrong reason, but I'll take the outcome.  At least, until some other reprobate is nominated in his place.

    Shades of Henry Kissinger (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    and the run-up to the '68 election.

    Michael Flynn cutting dirty deals with the Russians?

    It's looking more and more like it.

    Yep (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 06:32:09 PM EST
    It looks like Steele's dossier is going to take down a few people maybe even Trump.

    Jim Jeffries give Piers Morgan the finger. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 10:03:28 AM EST
    Great episode of Realtime. Great quote from Jim Jeffries. Folks here like to call comparison to Hitler and the Nazis hyperbole. If you people would take the time to actually read about the rise of Hitler during the 30s you would see the similarities in tactics and rhetoric.

    But here what Jeffries said to Morgan: "Hitler didn't kill the Jews on the first day, he worked up to it, mate."

    Ponder that next time you start twisting your panties because of comparisons to the Nazi and Trump/Bannon.

    I love it. JK Rowling (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    tweeted to Piers after he said he never read Harry Potter: "If only you'd read Harry Potter, you'd know the downside of sucking-up to the biggest bully at school."

    I think she nails the visceral attraction of Trump for some people: They just get wet, weak-in-the-knees, and want to fall in line as soon as the biggest ape (and I do mean ape) in the primal horde sounds off.


    My comment was especially (none / 0) (#87)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 11:10:11 AM EST
    aimed at the likes of McBain and TrevorBolder who insist on giving this guy "a chance." Sorry, but I refuse to give him the chance to starting killing Jews (or the equivalency in these times).

    Piers was the voice of reason (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    on last night's show.  Jeffries was funny earlier but lost his cool after Morgan corrected him on the silly Hitler reference.

    I'm not a big fan of Piers Morgan but I agree with most of his comments about the post election nonsense going on.  He put it best last week when he called the left's reaction as a hissy fit.


    Morgan is (was)? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    an appeasing boor.

    Maybe, (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 04:40:25 PM EST
    Morgan was auditioning for Sean Spicer's job.  An opening surely to occur soon.

    everyone loves (none / 0) (#98)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    a spurious Hitler or Nazi comparison.

    Let's just say Little Boots (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    and company are too fascistic in spirit for comfort of many in this country.

    Now, someone from the place that had the original Quisling in it's fairly recent history may have different feelings on the matter.


    It tends to weaken one's argument (none / 0) (#110)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:08:22 PM EST
    when they go for the extreme without justification.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#112)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:17:33 PM EST
    which part of "didn't kill the jews on the first day" did you not understand? That IS the justification for not trusting the so-called human DJT.

    Weak argument Chuck (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    Trump isn't Hitler.  Not even close.

    Another sign of weakness....  name calling.

    the so-called human DJT.

    Try something else.  I might agree with you if you do it well.    


    You are such an appeaser. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 07:15:18 PM EST
    Perhaps we should start calling you Neville.

    And you have poor reading comprehension. Go back and read the thread. I (nor Jim Jeffries) ever said Trump was Hitler. However, we did infer that his rise to power is analogous to Hitler and the Nazis (e.g. scapegoating "the other" for the country's woes (or supposed woes)). Goebbels strategy of the big lie. Use of propaganda. What I did say was 'read a history book.' Start with "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Stirer.


    oh yes. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 07:19:52 PM EST
    And "so-called" is DJT's words. "So-called judge." "So-called human." What's the difference?

    Finally a decent point (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    Trump's use of name calling is childish.

    This is such bull$hit (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    Piers Morgan started his whole discussion on this subject of Americans conflating Trump doings by saying Californians murder Trump supporters. Sorry, but Piers Morgan analysis is sorely skewed and not trustworthy.

    omg!! (none / 0) (#114)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    that is too funny!!

    the so-called human

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:17:35 PM EST
    Moving the Overton Window.  Trump has certainly done that.  

    What was once unthinkable--making fun of the disabled--is now accepted.  

    So, why should Dems play nice?


    So they can win upcomming elections (none / 0) (#126)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    They don't have to exactly play nice but they do need to clean up their act a bit.

    Why do Dems need (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:53:51 PM EST
    to clean up their act, but not GOP?

    Did Trump ever clean up his act?

    Playing nice does make it more comfortable for GOP now.


    Or just get down in the gutter (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:54:41 PM EST
    Worked for Republicans.

    It tended to weaken Piers (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    Argument when he claimed he was risking Californians drowning him off Santa Monica pier for his Trump support. But whatever!

    "Hissy fit"? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    Pfffffttttt ...

    If he actually believes that, he's a complete idiot.


    Loved it (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:33:06 PM EST
    It was splendid. Armando has been passing along Piers tweets though, Piers is a staunch Trump supporter. So with that background, it was really difficult to listen to Piers. Nothing has changed since I last read one of his Tweets, in fact everything has gotten worse.

    And Piers kept saying the same thing Meghan McCain would tweet, that being part of the #resistance would only make Trump stronger. Turned out they were both WRONG!! And now John McCain's daughter has finally begun to criticize Trump for some of the things he has said and done, instead of telling everyone to sit down and shut up.

    What I really loved though was Piers telling all the rest of us we need to calm down. We are catastrophizing. Then he proceeded to say that not declaring he hated Trump would get him waterboarded by Californians off Santa Monica pier.  Really Piers, who is making shit up here? I don't think it's the #resistance.


    Mel Brooks: (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by desertswine on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Speaking of Mel Brooks (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Nemi on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    as one of the many replies to Tr*mp's tweet read:

    Shouting "I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT!" after losing in court feels like a classic Gene Wilder bit in a Mel Brooks movie.

    Exactly. :)


    Ski racing from St. Moritz, (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by fishcamp on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    Switzerland is coming on NBC right now.  I've raced in this very race back in my fearless days.  Can't believe I did that.

    That is really cool (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:35:59 PM EST
    I never liked the diamond runs myself.....too much work and often knocking me on my arse.

    The Trumpistas... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    keep hammering on this false claim of voter fraud.  I fear there's going to be a big campaign against voters' rights in the near future.

    White House adviser Stephen Miller doubled down on the Trump administration's groundless claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire -- and across the nation -- during in an interview on ABC's This Week on Sunday.

    On This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Miller, a senior White House policy adviser, to provide that evidence. In fact, he asked three times.
    Miller said the show was "not the venue" to supply evidence, but repeated the baseless claim multiple times. He said in part:
    "I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who's worked in New Hampshire politics. It's very real. It's very serious."

    They'll be happy when no one can vote except themselves.

    dont you (none / 0) (#142)
    by linea on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 01:57:28 PM EST
    think Trumpistas is a poor portmanteau? isnt the use of Bernistas, a blending of bernie + sandinistas, intended to imply that bernie sanders supporters are to the left of the moderate-centrist democratic party?

    No, I don't. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    Can single individuals (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 08:20:21 PM EST
    "widely know" things?

    Sometimes it a short step from butchering the language to butchering reality.

    So is Miller saying people who "work in New Hampshire politics" who deny his assertion are lying?


    The idea is, I suppose... (none / 0) (#146)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    is that if it repeated enough, it will eventually enter the national consciousness as a fact, despite the lack of evidence.

    See prior comment (none / 0) (#148)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 06:42:14 AM EST
    regarding "the big lie." It is happening right in front of you all. Stop sticking your heads in the sand (or wherever).

    The best evidence that what Little Boots (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    and Miller are saying is a complete crock is that none of the usual wingnut think tanks have, as of yet, figured out a way to put together a position paper with any documented evidence -- or you can bet it would've been plastered all over this site by now by Trevor and Uncle Troll.

    This is all about "get them thinking about illegal voters and not about the Russians." Counting on the stupidity of the average American adult, which has been a winning strategy up until now.


    By that "logic" ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:09:24 PM EST
    ... isn't the use of "Clintonistas" the blending of Clinton + Sandinistas, intended to imply that Clinton supporters are "to the left of the moderate-centrist democratic party?"

    yes (none / 0) (#171)
    by linea on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    to me, that's exactly what Clintonistas would imply. i would expect a republican would use that term as a perjorative to imply clinton supporters were "radical left wing" socialists or communists.

    i think for trump we have trumpers or trumpism?


    And watching Miller (none / 0) (#149)
    by Nemi on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 06:52:45 AM EST
    apparently reading his replies from a teleprompter was ... weird!

    Vehement disagreement with the (1.50 / 2) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 09:23:57 AM EST
    judicial system is certainly Trump's right.

    You need to wait until he says...

     "Robart has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

    The unreasonable opposition of the Left has the potential to illicit responses that no one actually wants.

    And yes, GA. An attack will lead to blame being laid at the Left's feet.

    We do live in interesting times.

    Actually, no, Jim (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    Vehement disagreement with our court system is not the President's right. He has sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and our court system, including the authority to declare executive or legislative action to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, is an essential part of the constitutional plan of government. The President -- any President -- can vehemently disagree with a particular court ruling (assuming he cared to understand that ruling), but not with the system as a whole. When Tr*mp refers to Judge Robart as a "so-called judge" and when the describes our federal courts in general terms as "so political," he is attacking the system, not the ruling.

    The definition of vehement (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense.

    He has that right. And that has nothing to do with defending anything.

    You may disagree. In fact I am sure you do.


    One can disagree even forcefully with ... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    ... a particular ruling, without impugning the professionalism and integrity of the judge who issued it.

    That didn't happen here, just as it didn't happen last year with Judge Alonzo Curiel's particular ruling in the Trump University case.

    In both instances, Trump ignored the merits / demerits of the decision itself, and chose instead to berate and slur the judge personally without cause, other than his suffering hurt feelings and a bruised ego.

    Such public expressions of personal contempt and prejudice toward a sitting judge are unacceptable from anyone. From a president or presidential candidate, it rises to the level of egregious misconduct and further reflects a level of emotional maturity that's worthy of a frustrated sixth grader.



    Of course one can disagree nicely (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    You might even say that is what one should do.

    And while you claim the un elected appointed judge shouldn't be insulted, etc., you obviously think a President, elected by the people,is fair game.

    I think they both are.


    Apples and oranges, Jim. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    Elected officials are fair game in the realm of politics. What happens in an inherently nonpolitical forum as a court of law is a whole different animal.

    Judges are expected to be dispassionate and unbiased in the performance of their duties. You don't trash and insult a judge overseeing a case in which you have a vested interest, for the same reason that you don't heckle the prosecutors, defense counsels and / or jurors inside a courtroom.

    Once a matter becomes the purview of the judiciary, you let the judges do their job, and speak only in answer to direct questions. This isn't a sporting event, Jim. You don't "work the refs."



    Little Boots is where he is now (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:09:11 PM EST
    because, imo, many of his supporters have a strong emotional need for a bully/leader who in fact does "work the refs", and whose word is law..

    Some sort of Stockholm Syndrome at work here.

    As a result of too many people carrying their childhood "issues" on into adulthood.


    Donald, that's parsing at the highest level (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    While it is obvious that decorum should be maintained in the court room....outside the court room the judge is just another member of government.

    Would you think it proper if a judge in a murder case asked the DA..."Tell me. How many murders have occurred in Anytown."

    And "you don't work the refs?"

    Really???  You have never heard of "judge shopping."


    Judge shopping.. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    it's amazing the number of urban legends you could come to believe if you relied on talk radio for most of your information..

    If the choice is between you and Peter ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    ... as to who's more knowledgeable about legal matters, I'm going with Peter.

    There was no judge shopping, Jim. The State of Washington filed suit. Judge Robart was assigned to hear the emergency motion for a stay. And because Washington is one of the states which comprise the 9th U.S. Circuit, the government's appeal of Judge Ronart's order was filed in San Francisco.

    Stop peeing on people's legs and telling them it's raining.


    Nobody is arguing with Peter (2.67 / 3) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 08:12:22 AM EST
    on points of law.

    My point was and will remain that there are 3 equal branches of government and there have been, are and will be tension between them.

    And while I repeat that decorum must be maintained in the courtroom, I see no reason for suppressing criticism, mild and harsh, outside of the courtroom. If elected politicians cannot criticize then how can ordinary citizens?

    And then we have the First Amendment and that old right to assemble thing you seem to love when it is addressed towards Trump.

    The Left has long claimed that the Judicial reigns over the other two because it has used the courts to promote its goals, some of which I have cheered, others not so. To be fair, so has the Right.

    The courts are not perfect. All of them, from the top to the bottom, may be influenced by politics from both sides. If this were not true then the nominees of presidents would not be subjected to grilling by the opposite side.

    Whether they wind up wanting what they have after getting what they want is often another matter.

    In years past the judicial has mostly kept its fingers off the president's sworn duty to protect the country. Now it has decided, without attending any intelligence briefings, that it knows best.

    By doing so, at the behest of the Left, the Court has harmed its image and, like the Left, now owns any harm that comes from radical islamists to the country.


    "At the the behest of the Left.." (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    Explain please.

    I don't think you can.

    Are you suggesting that some shadowy, puppet-master organization, ie., "the Left" is somehow coercing judges to dispense with their traditional roles and act on it's behalf?

    Because that's what it sounds like.

    Also, it's odd that you seem to think judges should attend intelligence briefings, but don't seem to mind at all that the President doesn't.


    Of course he is, my dear. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 09:25:09 PM EST
    jondee: "Are you suggesting that some shadowy, puppet-master organization, ie., 'the Left' is somehow coercing judges to dispense with their traditional roles and act on it's behalf?"

    I'd say that we're about one comment away from a rant about George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Black Lives Matter, La Raza and / or ACORN.



    Donald, I didn't know you cared (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    Actually, over at Breitbart right now they're discussing the theory that Obama, before he left office, had commissioned a fiendishly clever network of underground tunnels built by genetically engineered mole people for the purposes of quickly shuttling  illegal voters from state to state.

    Fox News will be preempting their regular programming to have a special report on it later today.


    Sigh.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    It has long been a tactic by individuals of the Left, when someone notes that some action that pleases the Left as a group was wanted by the Left as a group that the person noting it is paranoid and making such wild statements as jondee's.

    Are you suggesting that some shadowy, puppet-master organization, ie., 'the Left' is somehow coercing judges

    That is the "Wild, ludicrous question designed to marginalize the other person" defense.

    It is a subset of the defense Judge Robart used when he wanted to know the names of the countries and incidents while ignoring the declared intent of radicals islamist as a group and the well reported successful attacks by radical islamists in the US.

    Not to mention the unsuccessful attempts.


    What Judge Robart was trying to find out (none / 0) (#153)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    was whether the Executive Order had any rational basis in fact, which is a test for constitutionality laid down by the Supreme Court. Or, to put it another way, as some other precedents do, whether the rationale behind the order was "bona fide." The particular inquiry you are fixated on, Jim, was just one question directed to the government's lawyer in pursuit of that larger, ultimate question.

    Peter, I do not understand the legal points (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 07:25:26 PM EST
    and appreciate your comments and information.

    But to me Judge Robart had to understand the conflict we are engaged in and instead of acting to help he made a political decision to look for a reason to block, as did the 9th.

    Anyway, thanks.


    So you admit you don't (none / 0) (#166)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    ... you don't understand the law,  but yet you accuse the judge of acting for political reasons rather than his educated,  professional judgement of the "legal points" that you don't understand.



    You don't have to know the law (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    to recognize political actions.



    Actions with political ramifications (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    aren't the same thing as "political actions."

    And you're right, you obviously don't know the law, or have a firm grasp of the intent behind it.



    You do have to ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:19:23 PM EST
    ... have a basic understanding of the law to claim the judge's decision wasn't based on the law.  Well, ...

    ... if you want to make a credible argument rather than a baseless smear.


    Ho-hum (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    I think you're marginalizing yourself, even more than you were already, by claiming judges make decisions "at the behest of the left", as if they were incompetetent to perform the duties they were carefully chosen to do without prompting from outside, interested parties.

    If you're going to go after incompetence, I suggest you start with Little Boot's lawyers, who are perfect examples of what happens when the fish rots from the head down.


    No jondee, I didn't say the judges were (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    incompetent. And you know that. You just "misunderstood" so you could misdirect. My comments are and have been that the judges acted on political positions.

    And that is an opinion.

    But if you want to discuss competence I direct you to consider that the media, the Left and Hillary all just "knew" she would win.

    All we needed was the NY Times publishing a head line in 50 pt "Hillary Wins!"


    Not just an opinion (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    It's a baseless opinion.   Almost as funny as the strawman argument you throw in right after it.

    Too late, Jim (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    you don't get to dissemble about what you already said. It's already in print for all to see.

    You said the federal judges were acting at someone or some faction's "behest", which they would make them either corrupt or incompetent or both, because acting at some special interest's behest is exactly what a Federal Judge is charged NOT to do.

    This all assumes of course, that you've mastered english enough to know what "acting at the behest" means.


    What's it like (none / 0) (#168)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:13:26 PM EST
    to live in such utter terror of the rest of the world? Must be exhausting. Is this your vision of America? A bunch of quivering masses of gelatin? This is being great?

    His vision is, I suspect (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    more like quivering mass of vanilla pudding. With a side of whipped cream.

    OOOOOOHHHHH. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 10:42:32 PM EST
    I've been getting it all wrong. It's Make America Great pudding Again. Not that other thing. I do likes me some good banana pudding. Can that be Great?

    Nope - sorry (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 08:23:26 AM EST
    The wingers and their supporters - including Trumpers - own it. They broke it when they cheered from their armchairs for an elective war in Iraq, based on imaginary WMDs and their conspiracy theories of smuggled weapons and "yellow cake" purchases.  The power vacuum you left and the rise of ISIS belong to you and yours.

    Marbury v. Madison (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    established the ability of the Federal Judiciary to  determine what is Constitutional.

    That is what the District Court and the Ninth Circuit decided.


    You forgot to mention, MKS (none / 0) (#156)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    that Marbury was decided in 1803, has not seriously been questioned since, and involved a question about whether President John Adams had exceeded the powers of his office, or whether, on the other hand, his successor and political rival, President Jefferson, and Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, had refused to carry out their constitutional duties.

    Chief Justice John Marshall (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    And as I recall, he declined to rule on the letters of appointment by asserting Supreme Court supremacy.....asserting power by refusing to wield it.  Nice irony.

    So, as a rule of thumb (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    can we assume that Federal Judges are qualified to make those determinations without the behest of radical groups who secretly want America to be attacked?

    Speaking of Jefferson and Adams (none / 0) (#159)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    those two were known to speak harshly about each other on occasion, Jefferson once calling Adams "a blind, bald, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphrodite character with neither the force or fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

    Adams returned the favor by calling Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-level fellow, the son of a half-breed squaw and a Virginia mulatto father."

    And here I was thinking the Founders always took the high road..

    J would've had to put those two in time out.


    And yet, they were close compatriots (none / 0) (#161)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    in the revolutionary period, and became good friends again in old age, even dying on the same day, which was the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, iirc.

    I suppose they're qualified to make (none / 0) (#160)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    decisions on points of constitutional law based solely on the reason, precedent and evidence, but there is some sort of secret pact among them, I've heard, that if a black Democrat is in the White House they will declare usurpations of power to be unconstitutional only if asked by a radical right-wing cabal, and if a white Republican (particularly one named "Bush" or "Tr*mp") is in the White House, then only at the behest of a secret America-hating group called "The Left." And they are so "tricksy" in this regard, that this is even true of so-called judges appointed, in part, for their political loyalty and leanings in the opposite direction.

    Must be one of those secret (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 13, 2017 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    doctrines adopted from the Freemasons.

    Interesting (4.33 / 3) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 12:37:53 AM EST
    you've re-imagined what the discussion was about so that you can win an argument that has no existence outside of the treacherously narrow confines of your skull.

    Did anyone claim at any time Little Boots didn't have the "right" to experience strong feelings?

    I think most here know what "vehement" means, without requiring eight hours to look up the definition of the word.


    jondee, your mendacious (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 09:11:54 AM EST
    meanderings are always a source of humor and I encourage you to continue. But here is the oath of office for the president.

    8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    There is nothing there saying that the president must bow down to the judicial branch.

    Indeed, if he thinks it is wrong he is commanded to challenge.

    After all, we have three equal branches of government. That tension may exist between them should not surprise anyone.

    And while it is true that the Executive and the Legislative have been quite good at accepting the rulings, some of which led to Civil War, the Dred Scott ruling comes to mind....It is quite possible that the citizens demand a redress of the court's wrongs.


    Minus the insult, what JonDee said (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    is correct. I did not object to the President* having or expressing "vehement" feelings or opinions. I said he had no right to attack the "judicial system," which is what you asserted. Attacking a given opinion is fair game, as long as he does not suggest extrajudicial remedies such as defiance or disobedience. ("See you in court," so to speak, is thus an appropriate response.) Your claim, Jim, was about the occupant of the White House opposing our "system." I deny that the President of the United States has that right, and I reiterate that attacking and undermining the system violates his oath of office.

    He Wasn't Attacking the "System" (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    Attacking the legal system would be doing something like advocating tort reform or that there be a civil service meritocracy to replace appointed and elected judges and prosecutors or even replacing the adversary system with an inquisitorial one.  Trump has a record of denouncing judges who make decisions against what he regards as his interests.  As far as I know, he doesn't have an issue with US legal procedures.

    When you as president seek to undermine ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 12:57:58 AM EST
    RickyJim: "Attacking the legal system would be doing something like advocating tort reform or that there be a civil service meritocracy to replace appointed and elected judges and prosecutors or even replacing the adversary system with an inquisitorial one.  Trump has a record of denouncing judges who make decisions against what he regards as his interests.  As far as I know, he doesn't have an issue with US legal procedures."

    ... public confidence in the personal integrity and competence of a federal district court judge and an appellate panel, simply because you don't like their rulings, that constitutes an attack by the executive branch upon the judicial system.

    But more to my own point, Peter so happens to be a highly respected legal counsel with over three decades' experience arguing cases before the state and federal bar. What are your professional credentials, that your would presume to correct him on this matter?



    I disavow any claim of entitlement (none / 0) (#93)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    to deference, Donald, when I'm sharing a political or philosophical viewpoint, rather than technical legal or constitutional information. My view is that criticism of a judge or attacking the federal courts in general as "so political" is an attack on our judicial system. But I don't think that's a perspective that anyone here shouldn't be able to engage with on an equal footing.

    Well, Peter, with all due respect, ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    ... my personal view is that you indeed have the requisite experience in the field of law to claim both standing and expertise on these issues. Ricky was attempting to correct you, as though you somehow don't know what you're talking about.

    I don't think so. Trump's attack on the judiciary is not a matter of personal opinion. It has been so blatant and obvious as to constitute a fact, and one which even SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch felt compelled to acknowledge as "disheartening" and "demoralizing."

    As you've noted several times, it's perfectly okay to disagree with Judge Robart's ruling. Hell, we do that here with judicial rulings all the time. But what we DON'T do is then call him a "so-called judge" as Trump did, which implies that he is professionally incompetent or otherwise unqualified to render a legally binding decision. That constitutes an attack on the judiciary as an institution, and that's out of bounds.



    Then we disagree. (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    Have a nice day.

    Mendacious meanderings (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:10:27 PM EST
    I like that, Jim.

    Congratualtions. You've gone from being a legend in your own mind to a very minor, momentary legend in my mind.


    Now I see Trump's excuse (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    ...is contained in his oath:
    ...to the best of my Ability...

    That is a detail of the oath which I had never noticed - and never had reason to, until now.

    Obama has criticized (none / 0) (#120)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    The judiciary, in a more nuanced and subtle manner than The Donald, but that isn't difficult. The Donald doesn't do nuanced and subtle.


    Much more recently, President Obama had a couple of notable run-ins with the Supreme Court. In his 2010 State of the Union, he chided the court for a recent decision holding unconstitutional certain campaign finance restrictions. Obama asserted that the court, in reaching its decision, had "reversed a century of law."

    That statement implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the court's holding; after all, what would drive the court to reverse a century's worth of precedent? This assertion was certainly more muted and nuanced than Trump's tweet about Judge Robart, but the setting in which Obama made the assertion makes that episode arguably more troubling than the current one involving Trump.

    After all, Obama delivered his remark during the State of the Union, effectively chiding the members of the court (or at least the majority in the case) who were sitting before him as a captive audience, and subjecting them to the emotions of the assembled legislators.

    In 2012, with the keystone case that would determine the viability of ObamaCare having been argued before the court but still awaiting decision, Obama cautioned the court to "play it straight when it comes to the interpretation" of the statute. A majority of the court ultimately did rule in favor of the president's preferred outcome, but the president's statement suggests that justices who did not rule in his favor would not be "play[ing] it straight" drew in question the legitimacy of the reasoning employed by those justices.

    He didn't attack Chief Justice Roberts, et al., personally by calling them "so-called justices," thereby impugning their professional qualifications and implying that they had no standing to even rendering a judgment.

    Try to understand the difference here -- and there IS a difference.


    Reading is fundamental (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 06:12:45 AM EST
    The judiciary, in a more nuanced and subtle manner than The Donald, but that isn't difficult. The Donald doesn't do nuanced and subtle.

    Obama asserted that the court, in reaching its decision, had "reversed a century of law."
    That statement implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the court's holding; after all, what would drive the court to reverse a century's worth of precedent

    , Obama cautioned the court to "play it straight when it comes to the interpretation" of the statute.

    A preemptive warning before the decision was arrived at...Chilling

    Like I said, many Presidents have done this, including Lincoln, FDR.

    The Donald just does it in a classless manner, as subtle as hammer


    "Preemptive warning" - pfffttttt (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    Not sure if that was funnier than the "chilling" characterization or the other way around.  Mild criticism is neither.

    Following in the footsteps (none / 0) (#137)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 08:54:28 AM EST

    Was Trump out of line? Yes, just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Obama before him. And the record suggests that working the refs this way doesn't hurt a president: John Roberts was the surprise fifth vote upholding Obamacare in the face of a "commerce clause" challenge.

    The best rejoinder to those who fear that an independent judiciary is at stake is that the adverse ruling of U.S. District Court Judge James Robart--the man Trump called a "so-called judge"--was unanimously upheld Thursday night by a panel of three appellate jurists.

    Trump's response was older than the Republic and as American as apple pie: "See you in court," he tweeted.

    I agree that Jefferson, Jackson (none / 0) (#140)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    and FDR were out of line in the same way, in the episodes I am familiar with. Not true as to Obama. Not familiar with what the specific references might be for Lincoln and TR, so I can't opine.

    Ok, now I've read the RCP article (none / 0) (#147)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 12, 2017 at 11:24:47 PM EST
    and I do not agree with the author's argument on either Lincoln or TR. Not equivalent situations. So I'll stick with my assessment above. Although perhaps Jefferson should get a pass, too, since his (mis)conduct occurred before the independence of the federal judiciary was firmly established, and the judiciary's final authority to declare "what the law is."

    I think he just looked (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    up the word "mendacious."

    And the alliteration is not characteristic.  Must have  picked it up from O'Reilly.


    another nattering nabob of negativism (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:13:15 PM EST
    i think you're wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:32:53 PM EST
    re: I think most here know what "vehement" means, without requiring... to look up the definition of the word.

    most people dont know that word. after the definition is posted, people say, "oh ja, that's it!" but most people would have dificulty providing a definition. in my opinion... based on my experience.


    Wrong. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    People who read this blog, know the meanings of words. Even "vehemently."

    Agreed. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 09:09:00 PM EST
    Most people on this blog are quite literate.

    And they also capitalize correctly. . . .


    It's an interesting subject.. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    words you see fairly frequently in print that you've Never heard anyone use in conversation..

    "Lugubrious" is one that leaps to wind.

    "Perspicacious" is one writers for the Atlantic like to dust off when they have a need to sound more intelligent than they in fact are (which is frequently).

    Christopher Hitchens always used to say "fatuous", never "idiotic" or "stupid" or "ludicrous".


    i love this!! (none / 0) (#67)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:34:01 PM EST
    i dont know "Lugubrious" or "Perspicacious" or "Fatuous."

    im not shy and im very educated. when im in a conversation and i hear a word that i dont know i always ask what that word means. they usually struggle for a definition and it's usually wrong (on investigating) and the word is usually used incorrectly. that's been my experience.

    some people seem to go out of their way, not to use a word to be more precise but, to use an obscure word. these people tend to use the obscure word incorrectly and are surprised that anyone asked for a clarification.


    My British Lit Prof (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:37:25 PM EST
    said she read a lot as a kid but was otherwise not worldly.

    She read a lot about a city called "Chicago."  She thought it was pronounced CHICK-a-go, and had no clue where "Chicago" (She-CA-go) was.


    But of course (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:40:22 PM EST
    no one reads much anymore...And the novel may be like eight track cassettes in many ways--a medium that had a unique and brief life span.  The life span of the novel:   1700-2000, more or less.

    Computers now reign.


    Tull (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 10:00:00 AM EST
    an attack will be the fault of the GOP because they failed to "protect us". Trump is the greatest recruiting tool that ISIS has ever had. Declaring war on entire religion is exactly what OBL wanted and you fools are playing right into their hands.

    You really (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    just spew anything, don't you?

    What Peter said, a thousand times.

    I marvel at our Constitution.

    You and Trump don't even understand it.  You especially cannot understand one of the reasons that make it remarkable: the Founders included a process to amend it -- which is why it, and this country, have avoided coups and endured for centuries.  

    Those brilliant, educated, privileged men had the humility to admit that they did not know everything.  You and Trump could learn from that, but both of you are entirely lacking in   hubris.

    In your case, that just makes you annoying.

    In his case, it could bring down our Constitution and our country -- but the cause will be the fools behind him, like you.  


    Jim and his friends will cheer on Trump ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    ... until the day they find themselves in that chinchilla-haired cheeto's crosshairs and their own entitlements are threatened and slashed. At that point, they'll be squealing like Ned Beatty in "Deliverance."

    "Now let him enforce it" (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    your yearning-for-simpler-times Southern imagination has once again gotten the better of you, Jim.

    This isn't and will never be the 1830s, and Little Boots, that born-with-a-silver-spoon NYC huckster is not Andrew Jackson.


    KSM's Letter to Obama - Jan. 8, 2015 (none / 0) (#1)
    by RickyJim on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 07:42:41 PM EST
    Khalid Shaikh Mohammad's grievances that lead him to "mastermind" 9/11 are well explained.  About half of it is an attack on US support of Israel. The letter reinforces my belief that the reason for the terrorism against the US from the Muslim world is US interventionism in their territory and not because the USA is populated by "infidels".  Does ISIS feel the same way?  Of course.

    I think the grievances by Muslims against other countries like France have more to do with the presence of large slums of immigrants in their cities rather than their foreign policy.

    Let's just (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 07:52:49 PM EST
    hope Trumpicide doesn't take the entire country down with it.

    trump (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 08:26:10 PM EST
    tweeted that nordstrom was treating his daughter unfairly from @therealdonaldtrump and then from...

    the official @POTUS account

    isnt that a serious violation that could cause his impeachment?

    Steve Bannon is on record saying (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 08:38:08 PM EST
    he "wants to destroy the state. Bring everything crashing down."

    A tad irresponsible, nihilistic, and unhinged maybe, for someone who sits on the NSC?

    We're supposed to "give these people a chance"? Really?


    This tweet was 20 minutes after the start (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    of what the White House schedule said was the start of an intelligence briefing for him. Think I just heard a talking head on tv say this.

    I'd bet he (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 04:02:34 AM EST
    commits three felonies every morning before makes his way to the breakfast table.

    Trump's angry tweets are a signal (none / 0) (#7)
    by hilts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 11:09:09 PM EST
    that it's time for him to have his diaper changed.  Trump is truly an infant.

    When a president fights the law (none / 0) (#6)
    by hilts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 at 10:07:41 PM EST
    This line reminds of a great song

    Trump is a malignant cancer in our body politic and hopefully he'll be removed from office on the grounds of mental incapacity or because of conviction for crimes and misdemeanors

    Kellyann Conways has been "counseled" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    ... for promoting Ivanka Trump's clothing line on national TV, a clear violation of government ethics laws.

    Don W. Fox, former general counsel and former acting director of OGE, told The Washington Post that "Conway's encouragement to buy Ivanka's stuff would seem to be a clear violation of rules prohibiting misuse of public office for anyone's private gain."
    He added: "This is jaw-dropping to me. This rule has been promulgated by the federal Office of Government Ethics as part of the Standards of Conduct for all executive branch employees and it applies to all members of the armed forces as well."
    Attorneys said a typical executive-branch employee who violated the rule could face significant disciplinary action, including a multi-day suspension and loss of pay.

    "Drain the swamp"?!?  Heh.

    They ARE the swamp ...

    What Conway did was apparently too much ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    ... even for the smarmy likes of Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight, who announced this afternoon that he concurs with Rep. Elijah Cummings' request that this matter be referred to the Office of Government Ethics for investigation.

    Hard to argue with ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    ... something this clear and blatant.  OTOH, she'll get "counseled" and that's it, because despite the deplorables - despite their screams about HC during the election - really don't care about actual law-breaking, and the man they elected probably loved it.

    ... didn't help him any tonight at a his town hall meeting in suburban Salt Lake City, where he was roundly booed by hundreds of angry constituents who packed the Brighton High School auditorium. And there were thousands more outside who could not get in.

    How bad did it get for Mr. Chaffetz? Well, at one point, a young girl got to the microphone and asked him what he was doing to protect the environment, adding, "Do you believe in science? Because I do."

    This is what resistance looks like. Aloha.


    LOL! Per CNN, it appears that Chaffetz ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    ... bailed on the town hall meeting nearly an hour early. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that this poor little right-wing snowflake can't handle the fact that even in Salt Lake City, people are getting pi$$ed off at his side of the aisle? Contrast that with Hillary Clinton, who endured the badgering of Chaffetz and his colleagues for 11 hours at the "Benghazi!" hearings.

    Ms. Conway (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 12:45:08 AM EST
    is the least important person in America. I won't even write about her.

    Trump (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:25:06 PM EST
    gets thumped! Unanimous decision.

    So sad. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    Even a not-so-bright high school student could figure it out.

    Even sadder (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:32:16 PM EST
    that the reaction will be that of a not-so-bright grade schooler...at best.

    Duce Trump has told Vladimir Putin... (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 10:27:36 PM EST
    that he does not want to renew a 2010 arms control treaty that limits the number of strategic nuclear weapons the US and Russia can deploy.

    Trump angrily denounced the New Start Treaty in a 28 January phone call to the Russian leader, according to sources briefed on the call. Reuters, which first reported Trump�s remarks, said the new US president also had to pause the hour long call to ask what the New Start Treaty was.

    Hold on to your butts.

    Well, my first thought (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    was eff you for ruining my weekend.  How I am supposed to keep my linguine down knowing this?

    Can we all now agree the 25th Amendment should be invoked?  We can deal with Pence for the next 4 years.  Trump, not so much.


    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:24:56 AM EST
    on the foreign front:
    Trump folds on China
    President Donald J. Trump and President Xi Jinping of China had a lengthy telephone conversation on Thursday evening. The two leaders discussed numerous topics and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our "one China" policy.
    It's worth noting that this was not just something that "came up" in the phone call. Xi would not have agreed to talk unless Trump explicitly promised beforehand that he would affirm the One China policy and do so publicly.
    also Flynn and/or Pence are caught lying about the former's dealings with the Russians,General Flynn Reportedly Spoke To Russia About Obama's Sanctions After All

    The "great negotiator" is now multi-tasking, bowing down to the Chinese while puckering up for Putin.

    Betsy DeVos... (none / 0) (#39)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    has been denied entrance into a DC school by a small band of protestors. Here's a video of her leaving in her giant car.

    i wiki'd (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    betsy devos and she seems well-respected in the republican community:

    Former presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney called DeVos an "outstanding pick" and a "smart choice", respectively. Republican Senator Ben Sasse said DeVos "has made a career out of standing up to powerful and connected special interests on behalf of poor kids who are too often forgotten by Washington." In an opinion editorial, The Chicago Tribune wrote that "DeVos has helped lead the national battle to expand education opportunities for children."

    betsy devos is the secretary of education for the united states. did they actually deny her entrance to a school? that seems wrong.

    the silliest one carried a "black lives matter" sign and blocked the passenger wagon from leaving. that clearly wasnt her personal car, it was an offical wagon of some sort. how was any of that helpful?


    Quite (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:14:40 PM EST
    of bit of "respect" can be purchased for a cool 200 mil, Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M To Republicans

    she picked her parents wisely (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    DeVos was born Elisabeth Prince on January 8, 1958. She grew up in Holland, Michigan, the daughter of Elsa and Edgar Prince, a billionaire industrialist.

    And, she picked her husband (none / 0) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    from a similar billionaire pool.   A multi-billionaire heir to the Amway fortune.

    Someone forgot about (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:27:01 PM EST
    millionahs and billionahs buying access and exerting undue influence over policy.

    Democrats just reward these people with ambassadorships, Republicans give them cabinet posts.


    Not unlike Cleopatra's royal barge ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    ... fleeing from the Battle of Actium.

    Breaking news (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    from CNN

    Parts of the British dossier have been verified.

    Speaking of Trumpicide, ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    ... there's this little matter that hasn't quite gone away, which has to do with Trump campaign's purported links to the Russian government prior to the election.

    Because given what current and former federal officials are now asserting, it appears that -- Vice President Pence's strenuous denials notwithstanding -- current National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did in fact maintain regular contact with the Kremlin's Ambassador to Washington, Sergey I. Kislyak, during the period on question. Per Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

    "Flynn wasn't just vaguely tied to the Trump campaign. He was his top foreign policy advisor and indeed a regular fixture with him on the campaign trail, often appearing with him at campaign rallies. Flynn also accompanied Trump when he received his first intelligence briefing as Republican nominee on August 17th."

    And per the Washington Post:

    "Flynn's contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

    "The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

    "The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Again, per Marshall at TPM:

    "Trump and Flynn received repeated security briefings during the final months of the campaign. Reports indicate that they received at least broad accounts of Russian hacking targeting Hillary Clinton. Seemingly during this period Flynn was also conducting backchannel communications with Russia's ambassador to the US. ... Did the subject of the hacking come up in those conversations with Kislyak?


    "Another question comes up. There were numerous instance during the campaign in which discredited and clearly false Russian propaganda ended up in statements or interviews from top Trump campaign leaders, including but not limited to Flynn. A number came from Manafort too.

    "At the time I thought it was most likely that they picked these up through alt-right Twitter streams and Breitbart, both of which were ready channels for Russian propaganda from sources like RT and Sputniknews. If that was what you were immersed in you'd likely hear these fake stories reported as news. I still think that's the most likely explanation. But perhaps it's not the only one.

    "When we look at the big picture, these pre-election back channel communications seem considerably more significant than the post-election ones." (Again, emphasis is mine.)

    Curiouser and curiouser. In a follow-up post, Marshall poses the questions which now need to be asked:

    "Did President Trump know this at the time? If so, did he discuss the conversations with Flynn? Authorize them? Use them as a conduit for passing his own messages? If he did not know about them at the time, when did he learn of them?" (Again, emphasis is mine.)


    reads... (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    like wild speculation and an excess of question marks. doesnt it?

    re: "Did the subject of the hacking come up in those conversations with Kislyak?"


    It's (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 07:25:15 PM EST
    not speculation when it's obviously posed as questions. Questions that we must  demand to be answered.

    Well, here's one more question mark for you: (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    What are you talking about? Take the time to first read what's written first, including the links, before you type your comment.

    Intelligence officials have confirmed that Gen. Michael Flynn was in fact in regular communication with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 campaign.

    Given Gen. Flynn's access to U.S. intelligence, which he enjoyed at the time by virtue of being Trump's senior campaign advisor on national security, doesn't that concern you?

    Josh Marshall is asking pertinent questions which need to be addressed, specifically  with regards to Donald Trump's own role in all of this. What did he know about Gen. Flynn's contacts with Ambassador Kislyak, and when did he know it?

    And what should be even more disconcerting is that fact that U.S. officials have now confirmed that they have corroborated several important elements of the so-called "Russian Dossier," that series of raw intelligence memos compiled by former British MI^ operative Christopher Steele which became public in early January of this year. (CNN's original report can be seen HERE.)

    Steele's memos, if you recall, strongly suggest that the Putin regime has made a serious effort to "cultivate, support and assist" Donald Trump for at least five years.

    And if you further recall, federal officials said at the time that none of the allegations included therein had yet been verified. Well now, a month later, at least some of them HAVE since been corroborated, according to this report, leaving open the likelihood that they're still working on the rest.



    I'M SORRY!! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    i did read your entire post!!  all of it.  and it was a lengthy post too {{smile}}.  but i dont know what to do with any of this.  tell me which Republican Senate Sub-Commitee i should send my ALL CAPS tweet to.

    this doesnt go anywhere except towards a doctor's prescription for xanax.

    in my opinion.


    Then as I told you before, you can move on and you don't have to read them. But you don't get to imply condescendingly that I don't know what I'm talking about -- or in this instance, what Josh Marshall and three Washington Post reporters are talking about -- simply because it hasn't been synthesized into one three-sentence paragraph for you.

    TL is an intellectually-oriented site for serious adults to discuss current events, and the rest of us aren't here to serve and indulge you. Some issues defy simplification, and our understanding of their potential ramifications and / or consequences requires a subsequent discussion of them in considerable detail.

    If you don't understand something that's said then by all means, don't hesitate to ask for further explanation or clarification. But don't expect us to acknowledge and coddle your willful ignorance when you summarily dismiss a particular post, just because you don't want to read it or don't like the subject matter.

    Have a nice evening.


    ok (none / 0) (#79)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:43:22 PM EST
    toward (in american english)

    NEW - 9th not happy with the three judges? (none / 0) (#72)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 09:26:26 PM EST
    THOMAS, Chief Judge and En Banc Coordinator:
    A judge on this Court has made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judge motions panel on February 9, 2017, should be reconsidered en banc. A sua sponte en banc call having been made, the parties are instructed to file simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether this matter should be reconsidered en banc. The briefs should be filed on or before 11:00 a.m., Pacific time, on Thursday, February 16. The supplemental briefs shall be filed electronically and consist of no more than 14,000 words. See General Order 5.4(c)(3).


    Your Headline is Misleading (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:04:26 PM EST
    One of the 44 judges, as of now unidentified, on the court wants the whole court to hear it.  So?

    maybe (none / 0) (#76)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    but doesnt the "Chief Judge and En Banc Coordinator" need to evaluate and then grant the sua sponte en banc request based on some merit?

    Peter or (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    one of our other legal eagles explained this. You might look at some of the other threads.

    other threads? (none / 0) (#78)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    but isnt this new? i thought i was the first person to post this.

    And yes, you were first to post (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 11:02:58 PM EST
    about it, if that matters to you. But you guessed wrong what it means (not that you're to blame for that. It's quite technical, and not intuitive).

    {{ hugs }} (none / 0) (#82)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 11:07:20 PM EST
    See my comments (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 10:56:07 PM EST
    ## 6 and 7 under "Trump channels ACLU " (Friday).

    sua sponte & en banc (none / 0) (#74)
    by linea on Fri Feb 10, 2017 at 09:46:10 PM EST
    In law, sua sponte or suo motu "on its own motion" describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties.


    In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them.

    Spanish newspaper El Nacional (none / 0) (#89)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    accidentally used a photo of Alec Baldwin instead of Trump link

    Kellyanne's husband, George Conway, is (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 12:28:54 PM EST
    now a top contender for US Solicitor General after the leading man, Charles Cooper, dropped out.  Cooper just could not go through a confirmation process such as his good friend, Jeff Sessions,  went through. Cooper's high profile case was the defense of same sex marriage bans (CA Prop 8).

    Kellyanne's husband is a Yale law graduate and NY attorney, known for his representation of Paula Jones in the case against President Clinton.  Mr. Conway also helped write the SC brief that President Clinton was not above the law, and not immune from the case.

    per wiki (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    According to Jones's account, on May 8, 1991, she was escorted to Clinton's (then Governor of Arkansas) room in the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he propositioned and exposed himself to her.... Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000 (equivalent to $1,250,000 in 2016).

    I shouldn't even bother (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    What, pray tell, is the relevance of your citstion of the Wikipedia article?  Everyone already knows this information - and it's not even relevant to the OP's post - which is actual news.

    background info? (none / 0) (#111)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:09:35 PM EST
    i had to wiki "Paula Jones" so i thought maybe other people would be curious and i could save them the time. it was 18 years ago, some people were toddlers back then.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:20:30 PM EST
    You think people here haven't heard of Paula Jones???

    Sure - go with that.


    BTW - Interesting use of the ellipsis.  Very telling.


    ive heard of her (none / 0) (#116)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    vaguely but didnt know the specifics.

    what's very telling about my ellipses?

    Sometimes we want to omit words from the end of one sentence but continue to quote from subsequent sentences. Editors and style books differ in their handling of this type of ellipsis, often called the terminal ellipsis. Some style manuals tell us to use three spaced dots, just as we would for an omission within a sentence. However, others advocate the use of four spaced dots. The fourth dot stands for the period at the end of the sentence that we have not entirely quoted; it lets our reader know that the quotation borrows from more than one sentence of the original text.

    The fact that you didn't know ... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 08:34:09 PM EST
    ... about her really has no bearing on whether others have, much like your habit of defining words that most 8th graders know.

    BTW - Ellipses are often very telling when it comes to determining what portions of the quote the author wishes to emphasize, as well as which parts they wish to omit - their underlying agenda, if you will.


    oh (none / 0) (#130)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    i thought you were implying that you could tell where i went to school (or something) by my ellipsis usage style.

    i dont know that it's a breach of protocol, in an open thread, when someone mentions Paula Jones or Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme (el alia) to post an aside for forum members who have fewer years of experience and knowledge on this earth.


    Good thing no one said it was (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 09:21:05 PM EST
    Just unnecessary, irrelevant and,  (IMO) unbelievable.

    Although P. Conway is reasonably well (none / 0) (#115)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    qualified to be SG, I would be concerned about his ability to show independence from White House political aims when making the difficult legal judgments that are part of that office's most important responsibilities.

    Well, they're still showing soccor (none / 0) (#96)
    by fishcamp on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    on NBC, so I don't know what's going on.  St. Moritz is where I met the Shah of Iran.  As I mentioned some time ago, he invited the U S and French ski teams over for dinner.  We later went downstairs to his "game" room, which turned out to be a shooting gallery.  We fired many types of automatic weapons.  This was in the mid 60's when both the Shah  and automatic weapons were ok.  They weren't really ok back then either, nor was he.

    They cancelled the DH (none / 0) (#99)
    by fishcamp on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    due to fog, but are finally showing the men' GS from a couple of days ago.  We all used to love going to St. Moritz, since it was and still is a very fancy and expensive ski resort.  They have horse races on the frozen lake, and the most dangerous bob sled race in the world.  Teams would fly off the course and land way up in the trees.  Not my kind of racing.

    nbc news (none / 0) (#107)
    by linea on Sat Feb 11, 2017 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump -- who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.