The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Isgrimnur]

CNN

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed a $19.1 billion disaster aid bill after delays stalled the measure from getting passed.

Trump wrote on Twitter he'd signed the measure, and included a photo that appears to have been taken aboard Air Force One.

"Just signed Disaster Aid Bill to help Americans who have been hit by recent catastrophic storms," Trump tweeted. "So important for our GREAT American farmers and ranchers. Help for GA, FL, IA, NE, NC, and CA."

Trump also insisted that Puerto Rico should be pleased at him for approving the bill, despite criticism from the island that he hasn't done enough in helping recovery efforts after Hurricane Maria.

"Puerto Rico should love President Trump. Without me, they would have been shut out!" he wrote.
...
A handful of House Republicans, arguing that the full House of Representatives should be present to take a roll call vote, rather than attempting to move the bill while lawmakers were not in Washington, held up passage of the measure last month after the Senate passed the bill. It ultimately passed the House on Monday.

[Isgrimnur]

More great use of executive time.

Trump tweeted, "In honor of his past service to our Country, Navy Seal #EddieGallagher will soon be moved to less restrictive confinement while he awaits his day in court. Process should move quickly!

BI

A military judge refused to dismiss one of the Navy's most prominent war crimes cases Friday, only days after he removed the lead prosecutor amid allegations of misconduct.

Capt. Aaron Rugh, however, did find meddling by prosecutors and investigators troubling enough to reduce the maximum penalty Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher could face if convicted of premeditated murder.

Gallagher had been facing life without parole if convicted. But Rugh said he would impose no penalty greater than life imprisonment with the chance of parole.

Defense lawyers argued for the case to be dismissed after discovering prosecutors secretly tracked their emails without court approval.

Rugh found the intrusion cast doubt on whether Gallagher could get a fair trial and "placed an intolerable strain on the public's perception of the military justice system."
...
Last week, Rugh unexpectedly released Gallagher from custody as a remedy for interference by prosecutors in the middle of a hearing that also included accusations they withheld evidence that could help his defense.

[Holman]

What's so perfect is that Wolfe's novel is basically about Trumpian greed.

[Skinypupy]

“NO COLLUSION! But I’d have absolutely no problem with it, if the opportunity arises. And I wouldn’t tell the FBI.”

Good lord.

[Holman]

“NO COLLUSION! But I’d have absolutely no problem with it, if the opportunity arises. And I wouldn’t tell the FBI.”

Good lord.

He's asking for it. They're listening.

[malchior]

The House Democrats' reaction will probably amount to murmuring softly about this.

Rick Wilson blew up about it which was fun to read - NSFW warning. Spoiler alert his last sentence in his first tweet is correct.

[Smoove_B]

Now, now. Just because he has no problem saying he's accept foreign aid to help against an opponent, let's not go rushing to conclusions. We certainly don't want to embolden him or risk emboldening his supporters going into the 2020 election cycle. It's probably best we just chuckle uncomfortably and shrug our shoulders - that's just Trump! He's such a scamp!

Also, F Mitch McConnell.

[malchior]

True, he is just goading us into reacting to his nonsense. It isn't like the Commander in Chief is seriously talking about soliciting foreign intelligence aid. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't need it because he is winning every poll in every state anyway, right? Also I agree, F McConnell.

[GungHo]

Now, now. Just because he has no problem saying he's accept foreign aid to help against an opponent, let's not go rushing to conclusions. We certainly don't want to embolden him or risk emboldening his supporters going into the 2020 election cycle. It's probably best we just chuckle uncomfortably and shrug our shoulders - that's just Trump! He's such a scamp!

Also, F Mitch McConnell.

I get what you're saying, I really do. And I think I'm starting to come around on this issue of going ahead and officially doing the impeachment thing(This latest bit from trump is really incredible and obviously not in a good way) but I just don't have any faith in the electorate tbh. Maybe we could just play this on a loop until next November? Though I can tell you right now that tomorrow when I talk to trumpkins at work they'll say this is no big deal.

[GreenGoo]

For all the drumpf supporters who think his nationalistic, anti-globalist ways are the correct path for the US, they sure are ready to accept the world's help in determining who gets to "rule" the country.

[Smoove_B]

Though I can tell you right now that tomorrow when I talk to trumpkins at work they'll say this is no big deal.

Prediction: They enjoy how when Trump ask for intelligence from foreign agents it triggers the Libs.

[pr0ner]

Gotta love grifters who take advantage of Trump's announcement to...try to make money on Twitter?

[Holman]

Pro-Trump Twitter now is all about how every politician colludes with foreign powers but only Trump is honest enough to admit it.

NO COLLUSION! WOULD COLLUDE AGAIN!

[Holman]

I meet and talk to “foreign governments” every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Whales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France and the President of Poland. We talked about “Everything!” Should I immediately.....

.....call the FBI about these calls and meetings? How ridiculous! I would never be trusted again. With that being said, my full answer is rarely played by the Fake News Media. They purposely leave out the part that matters.

He really does think we're as stupid as he is.

Also: "Prince of Whales."

[Jeff V]

Also: "Prince of Whales."

Yeah, you know Sir Moby Dick.

[Isgrimnur]

It's what happens when you elect a white whale to the office of the presidency.

[Remus West]

It's what happens when you elect a white whale to the office of the presidency.

[LordMortis]

Pro-Trump Twitter now is all about how every politician colludes with foreign powers but only Trump is honest enough to admit it.

NO COLLUSION! WOULD COLLUDE AGAIN!

It's no collusion if I don't solicit help. The fact that I benefit from the help and I treat the helpers as preferred entities is irrelevant. Foreign states and oligarchs and personal business interests are no different than corporation which are the same as people and deserve to be protected like citizens. You can see it all in my taxes, though I'll sue you if you try because I am under audit.

I would never be trusted again

LOL. You're already there, Mr "Secret intelligence of our allies not classified if I publish it."

[El Guapo]

Now, now. Just because he has no problem saying he's accept foreign aid to help against an opponent, let's not go rushing to conclusions. We certainly don't want to embolden him or risk emboldening his supporters going into the 2020 election cycle. It's probably best we just chuckle uncomfortably and shrug our shoulders - that's just Trump! He's such a scamp!

Also, F Mitch McConnell.

I get what you're saying, I really do. And I think I'm starting to come around on this issue of going ahead and officially doing the impeachment thing(This latest bit from trump is really incredible and obviously not in a good way) but I just don't have any faith in the electorate tbh. Maybe we could just play this on a loop until next November? Though I can tell you right now that tomorrow when I talk to trumpkins at work they'll say this is no big deal.

I think there's a 70% - 80% chance that the House winds up impeaching Trump either end of this year or (more likely) early next year. Mainly because of Trump doing shit like this, and the fact that the current opposition / reluctance on impeaching Trump is less about not wanting to impeach him, and more about the near certainty that he won't be removed.

[Smoove_B]

I don't even care about removal. Instead, I'm more for the idea that for fucking once - just once - he needs to be held accountable. Additionally, the party of GOP enablers need to be held accountable. How do you do that? Impeachment. There needs to be a formal, public review that clearly and concisely indicates that no, this is not ok. If that leads to his removal? Terrific. If it doesn't? Don't care. But sitting around and shrugging shoulders is not going to work.

I get that there are scheduled hearings and people are coming to testify. However, that's such a long, slow process its bumped out of the news cycle almost immediately. It also does not thing to address accountability. Finding facts - absolutely important. Getting statements on record? Also important.

Can't we just get Jon Steward to make a statement about this? That seems to work.

[LordMortis]

I don't even care about removal. Instead, I'm more for the idea that for fucking once - just once - he needs to be held accountable. Additionally, the party of GOP enablers need to be held accountable. How do you do that? Impeachment. There needs to be a formal, public review that clearly and concisely indicates that no, this is not ok. If that leads to his removal? Terrific. If it doesn't? Don't care. But sitting around and shrugging shoulders is not going to work.

I get that there are scheduled hearings and people are coming to testify. However, that's such a long, slow process its bumped out of the news cycle almost immediately. It also does not thing to address accountability. Finding facts - absolutely important. Getting statements on record? Also important.

Can't we just get Jon Steward to make a statement about this? That seems to work.

The only issue I have with this is if you impeach and it doesn't lead to any consequences, how much further down the rabbit hole do we go? How is that accountable? "Look ma, no consequnces" has already been the GOP rallying cry for the better part of a decade and POtuS has already taken it to the next level in DragonBall Z ridiculous fashion.

I don't have good answers. It's not been good for my health.

[El Guapo]

I don't even care about removal. Instead, I'm more for the idea that for fucking once - just once - he needs to be held accountable. Additionally, the party of GOP enablers need to be held accountable. How do you do that? Impeachment. There needs to be a formal, public review that clearly and concisely indicates that no, this is not ok. If that leads to his removal? Terrific. If it doesn't? Don't care. But sitting around and shrugging shoulders is not going to work.

I get that there are scheduled hearings and people are coming to testify. However, that's such a long, slow process its bumped out of the news cycle almost immediately. It also does not thing to address accountability. Finding facts - absolutely important. Getting statements on record? Also important.

Can't we just get Jon Steward to make a statement about this? That seems to work.

I'm just skeptical about how much impeachment without removal is actually holding him accountable. The GOP will vote to acquit, they won't even get to a majority in the Senate (if literally any GOP senators vote to remove), Trump will tout how he's been vindicated several times over (which will be echoed in conservative media)...and that will be that.

I'm fine with going for it, I just think that people should temper their expectations on what it's actually going to do.

[LawBeefaroni]

Don't care. But sitting around and shrugging shoulders is not going to work.

It's not shrugging of shoulders. It's abject fear that impeachment without removal or failed impeachment will lead to a Trump victory in 2020. It's electioneering and pollsters and everything that is wrong with our electoral system dictating policy and actions of cowardly legislators.

[Smoove_B]

The only issue I have with this is if you impeach and it doesn't lead to any consequences, how much further down the rabbit hole do we go? How is that accountable? "Look ma, no consequnces" has already been the GOP rallying cry for the better part of a decade and POtuS has already taken it to the next level in DragonBall Z ridiculous fashion.

But I do think there will be consequences. Maybe for democracy and not specifically for Trump, but I cannot accept this idea that the President is above the law - particularly when he's openly and comfortably doing things that are inexcusable. I'd argue that by not pursuing this, there are consequences - we just won't feel them until next time.

I'm just skeptical about how much impeachment without removal is actually holding him accountable. The GOP will vote to acquit, they won't even get to a majority in the Senate (if literally any GOP senators vote to remove), Trump will tout how he's been vindicated several times over (which will be echoed in conservative media)...and that will be that.

Good. Let's get them all on record - officially indicating their position and lack of interest in conducting a formal review. They don't get a pass on this.

It's not shrugging of shoulders. It's abject fear that impeachment without removal or failed impeachment will lead to a Trump victory in 2020. It's electioneering and pollsters and everything that is wrong with our electoral system dictating policy and actions of cowardly legislators.

That's the line I'm hearing, yes. He'll somehow use this to coast to victory. Good. If impeachment hearings are held and his actions are laid bare for all to see and people still vote him back into office? Then we deserve to fucking burn.

I think what rubs me raw about this is the general sentiment that suggests everyone knows what he's doing / has done is questionable/wrong/illegal but the risk of challenging that formally is just to great. Really? The risk of allowing someone as powerful as the President to act unchallenged is too great so we just abdicate whatever the office wants? Whatever they do? No, no I do not think that's correct.

[El Guapo]

That's the line I'm hearing, yes. He'll somehow use this to coast to victory. Good. If impeachment hearings are held and his actions are laid bare for all to see and people still vote him back into office? Then we deserve to fucking burn.

I guess in principle I care a lot about getting rid of Trump, and don't care much about whether we get an outcome that we "deserve".

[Blackhawk]

We're getting rid of Trump. In 2020 or 2024, we're getting rid of Trump. I'd rather minimize the legacy he leaves behind. Anything he can do as President can be undone, but not making any attempt to confront a criminal in the office? That's permanent. That lasts. That colors the office in 2120, long after any policies he made are meaningless.

[Remus West]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

[El Guapo]

We're getting rid of Trump. In 2020 or 2024, we're getting rid of Trump. I'd rather minimize the legacy he leaves behind. Anything he can do as President can be undone, but not making any attempt to confront a criminal in the office? That's permanent. That lasts. That colors the office in 2120, long after any policies he made are meaningless.

Honestly, I wouldn't 100% assume that we're getting rid of Trump in 2024 if he gets reelected.

[Zaxxon]

Was about to say the same...

[GreenGoo]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

How are you making sure you get him out in 2020? By hoping really, really hard?

[Holman]

So apparently they're just going to ignore this?

[El Guapo]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

How are you making sure you get him out in 2020? By hoping really, really hard?

I think the general plan is to campaign against him and do intensive get out the vote efforts. It's a crazy plan, I know, but it just might work. The key to the plan is that Trump is fairly unpopular among the general population.

[Skinypupy]

So apparently they're just going to ignore this?

You expected anything different?

[LordMortis]

If they remember one thing about the dark age of the US Federation, it will be the word "unprecedented".

[GreenGoo]

I think the general plan is to campaign against him and do intensive get out the vote efforts. It's a crazy plan, I know, but it just might work. The key to the plan is that Trump is fairly unpopular among the general population.

That sounds like special effort and not at all like business as usual for an election. I admire their commitment. And hope. Lots and lots of hoping.

[malchior]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

This embolden his supporters line is unsubstantiated defeatism. This is how the Democrats get beaten time and time again. Why stand up for Merrick Garland? Hillary is definitely going to win. Why impeach - the Republicans aren't going to convict him? Why should we stick our necks out? They lose by not fighting. And they fold easily. At some point they need to fight even if it is just because it is the right thing to do. If they are worried about 'emboldening' the Trump supporters, why aren't they worried that putting up another fucking 75-year old boomer and not fighting isn't going to depress their vote?

Another way to also look at it is why is Pelosi any better than McConnell - well that is a stretch obviously since F McConnell - but in the sense that she is just maximizing perceived political advantage for her party? Again I'll stress they are making the same mistakes they've made in the past by being reluctant to fight and just expecting the win. The Democrats seemingly excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They need to learn from that lesson. Part of the reason the Republicans have been spanking them despite being in the minority is they fight. They win. The Democrats have to learn at least that from them and can not bank on doing nothing working out for them.

I think the general plan is to campaign against him and do intensive get out the vote efforts. It's a crazy plan, I know, but it just might work. The key to the plan is that Trump is fairly unpopular among the general population.

So the Hillary plan again? That is why I respect the Democrats. They love to take an exceptionally risky path and lose because they absolutely suck at risk identification/management.

[El Guapo]

When the attempt simply enboldens and fires up his supporters while simulatenously being the equivilent of softly saying "hey stop it" when someone punches you in the face? Sorry, I'd rather we make sure he gets out in 2020 and THEN address his crimes.

This embolden his supporters line is unsubstantiated defeatism. This is how the Democrats get beaten time and time again. Why stand up for Merrick Garland? Hillary is definitely going to win. Why impeach - the Republicans aren't going to convict him? Why should we stick our necks out? They lose by not fighting. And they fold easily. At some point they need to fight even if it is just because it is the right thing to do. If they are worried about 'emboldening' the Trump supporters, why aren't they worried that putting up another fucking 75-year old boomer and not fighting isn't going to depress their vote?

Another way to also look at it is why is Pelosi any better than McConnell - well that is a stretch obviously since F McConnell - but in the sense that she is just maximizing perceived political advantage for her party? Again I'll stress they are making the same mistakes they've made in the past by being reluctant to fight and just expecting the win. The Democrats seemingly excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They need to learn from that lesson. Part of the reason the Republicans have been spanking them despite being in the minority is they fight. They win. The Democrats have to learn at least that from them and can not bank on doing nothing working out for them.

I think the general plan is to campaign against him and do intensive get out the vote efforts. It's a crazy plan, I know, but it just might work. The key to the plan is that Trump is fairly unpopular among the general population.

So the Hillary plan again? That is why I respect the Democrats. They love to take an exceptionally risky path and lose because they absolutely suck at risk identification/management.

Ultimately the "defeat Trump in 2020" approach is BY FAR the most likely to succeed in removing Trump. Trump is unpopular! He won in 2016 (despite getting 2 - 3 million fewer votes) because he was an outsider and because his opponent was even more unpopular. If they run someone who's mildly popular, or even mildly unpopular, that's probably ~ 60% chance of winning. What are the odds of convincing 67% of Senators, many of whom have to worry about winning a Republican primary dominated by MAGA voters, to vote to convict Trump?

So at the end of the day the election is the only plausible way to get Trump out of office, beyond waiting until 2024 (again, not a sure thing, but it's the second most likely way that he leaves office). Hence the idea that the Democrats, in making their decisions, should be optimizing their odds of winning in 2020.

That said, I am similarly skeptical of the notion that impeachment will energize the Trump base - I assume they're going to be reasonably energized in 2020 regardless. So I mostly view impeachment as a feel good exercise that won't accomplish much. It could well move Trump's approval rating down a point or two (with some risk that it might move it up, who knows).

That said, I am also inclined to your view that Democrats don't 'fight' enough, by which I mainly mean that they don't pull enough stunts. Maybe impeachment is the right way to go. But there are also other routes that they could take - I'm kind of intrigued by the option of House democrats making use of 'inherent' contempt powers to arrest people in defiance of their subpoenas. Or to shut down the legislative process to the maximum extent possible until legislation is adopted to address 2020 election security, and/or voting rights. I don't think the 'correct' stunt is obvious, but I do think that there is a compelling argument for doing more than they are currently doing.

[GreenGoo]

This embolden his supporters line is unsubstantiated defeatism.

Thank. You.

Everyone just knows this is what will happen and there is no point in trying to do the right thing until after the election. Maybe. But then drumpf will be gone and no longer a national problem. Drumpf will either win and everyone will bemoan not doing something about it *before* the election or he will lose, and drop off the political landscape, becoming irrelevant in any real capacity. Irrelevant things don't get a lot of media (except for funny, click bait headlines) or politician focus.

No one gives a crap about a former president, not with regard to holding them accountable anyway. He's golden, whatever happens in 2020.

[Remus West]

No one gives a crap about a former president, not with regard to holding them accountable anyway. He's golden, whatever happens in 2020.

None have ever been jailed for Treason before. They will care. If only because being out of office won't remove his desire for the spotlight. Prison will.

[GreenGoo]

No one gives a crap about a former president, not with regard to holding them accountable anyway. He's golden, whatever happens in 2020.

None have ever been jailed for Treason before. They will care. If only because being out of office won't remove his desire for the spotlight. Prison will.

OK, how about a gentleman's bet? The bet will only matter if he loses in 2020 (which I think he will, as my thinking is similar to El Guapo's in this regard). Within the first year talk of drumpf in anything but past tense will drop to near zero, and calls for investigation and/or prosecution will diminish until only a few pundits mention it in passing. This is my position.

We can meet again here a year after the election to discuss, if you are amiable.