Sometimes it is a drag being correct

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2019, 01:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Lincoln was fighting a war, FDR didn't get his way (or even start to implement it) and Nixon had the sense to step-down.

All of which is irrelevant to the point Fred is making, that being that the country's democratic institutions have survived far greater threats than the Trump administration and remain with us.

Quote:Trump is just Trump.  He's certainly not smart enough to know when to quit.

This isn't an argument.  

[GMDino]

(06-04-2019, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of which is irrelevant to the point Fred is making, that being that the country's democratic institutions have survived far greater threats than the Trump administration and remain with us.


This isn't an argument.  

I never disagreed with Fred...I pointed out that while we have survived as a country there were variables to those three situations not mentioned.

And DJT not being as smart as Nixon is an argument that he'd never step down or know when to stop with a bad idea.

Of course Trump isn't as smart as a lot of people but some people want to hard core support him anyway. 

[Dill]

(06-04-2019, 09:59 AM)Beaker Wrote: Trump is an absolute moron and an embarrassment, but those who call him fascist are way off base and don't actually know what true fascism is.

I wouldn't say WAY off base.  All the general criteria for right-wing authoritarian leadership are there for Trump, including the backing of a mass right-wing populist base ready to embrace all manner of illiberal politics.
 
“Classical" fascism might place more emphasis on national rebirth. We don't see Trumpists adopting uniforms and marching in the streets. Every fascist leader I can think of had no problem executing party "traitors", whereas Trump can't even fire people face-to-face. And I can't think of any fascist leader who was as manipulable as Trump is. He more or less reacts opportunistically to his crowd and to Fox prompts. Where fascist leaders led their masses, Trump is led by his. While he judges people "weak" or "strong," as did fascist leaders, he himself shows little sign of their steely resolve to crush opposition, to project power.
 
Still, we should be careful that historical labels, whether accepted or rejected, don’t prevent us from considering political innovation.  Back in 1919, when disgruntled German veterans gathered in Munich beer halls to organize opposition to their liberal government and to MGGA, they clearly thought their politics something new, but had no idea what to name themselves. This was three years before the Fascisti marched on Rome to "drain the swamp." European political parties in 1919 were either conservative (nationalist) or liberal or socialist or communist. 
 
Like the conservatives, this new German party were strong, even hyper nationalists who hated liberals, but they were forward-looking and despised conservative tradition; they were not part of the "establishment."  Like the socialists, they supported state health care and hated communists, but unlike the socialists, they were not internationally oriented or focused on class politics. They wanted to secure borders and expel foreigners and deny citizenship to people who had lived in Germany all their lives. Germany for Germans. No foreigners taking jobs and depressing wages and misdirecting public assistance away from true Germans.
 
So they went with "National Socialism." And set about undermining the legitimacy of the liberal government and the free press foundational to liberal politics. They pushed “national truth” based on national-racial feelings and opposed liberal lying press facts with their own nationalist media alternative facts.
 
It wasn't till years later that people recognized this as a NEW political form, emerging in Spain, Romania, Italy and other European countries, only failing (e.g. Great Britain, Poland, France) where they failed to undermine the press and the leading liberal/conservative parties.

But whether Trumpism is “really” fascism or becoming some new, as-yet-unnamed authoritarian "ism" of the 21st century, it is bad either way, right? Little matter what it is called.
 

[xxlt]

(06-04-2019, 07:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: "Endorsing" seems a bit harsh. If a criminal goes free for lack of evidence, his deeds are not endorsed. And Trump would go free, no matter what she does.

I mean, I generally tend to agree, but I guess I can understand the position she's in. It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't-scenario. Democrats can not win an impeachment battle. They can do the "right" thing for history, but it would be the wrong thing to get rid of Trump here and now. Plain and simple. Would you disagree with that?

If the Senate wants to own endorsing criminality make them own it. Make them accountable. Having integrity should never be underestimated. And as several pundits are pointing out, Nixon actually was elected in a landslide and thought to be untouchable. Then it turned out everyone was wrong. Trump (mighr have - the claims no votes were changed look shakier everyday) won an election by about the combined capacities of the Michigan and OSU stadiums. If the process begins it is possible that Trump could be removed. It would be nowhere near as shocking as Nixon's resignation. If not, let Republican politicians try to campaign on their choice.

[xxlt]

(06-04-2019, 08:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've drastically reduced my political media consumption in favor of more outdoorsy podcasts and pursuits. Mostly because thoughts like these were causing me a ton of stress. Don't get me wrong, I still stay informed, but I pretty much only consumed political media for a couple of years, there. Even while fishing, political podcasts would be in my ear. Now, I heard a conversation on one of the podcasts I still listen to about the question of impeachment.

I have to say that while I think Trump deserves impeachment, the question becomes "what do we get out of it?" 100% guaranteed he is still in office afterwards. So what accountability does it bring? It's not going to move the approval rating needle because we haven't sen that change much with any of the revelations about him. There is also a sizable portion of Democrats in the House that aren't all in on the notion of it, which means there is the potential for a divided caucus on the vote. That can be damaging to Democrats.

Those are all political considerations, though. If you're anything like me, you hate these excuses and just want people to ignore the politics when dealing with corruption. Unfortunately, impeachment is a political process and so political considerations are a big part of the calculus, and it is why Pelosi isn't moving forward on things.

Agree on most points, and my media diet has changed too. The one thing I would encourage is reading up on the Nixon hearings I referenced in another post. I think you would really scale back your 100% guarantee and double down on your stance on corruption if the latter is possible.

[xxlt]

(06-04-2019, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have typically seen it defined as a combination of nationalism and authoritarianism. He rose to the presidency relying on nationalism, and he certainly has authoritarian tendencies. He hasn't been able to completely fulfill those tendencies because of the guardrails of democracy holding him from it, but those guardrails have a lot of dents in them right now.

People hear fascism and all they think of is the end result. The fascist dictators that have made the history books. But those are the "success" stories. For every one of those, there are budding fascists that have tested democracies all over the world, and I truly believe Trump is one of those. There are a lot of people in the field of political science that see it this way, as well. Well respected scholars see proto-fascist tendencies within our country right now, scholars that have researched the rise and fall of democracies at the hands of fascists around the globe.

So people that dismiss the claims of fascism with Trump as easily as you are the ones that don't truly know fascism. The history, the trends, the rise of it around the world. It's more of a concern in this country than you realize.

Outstanding post. I do think the definition omits a critical element, which is a union between the authoritarian government and the largest corporations. Many political scientists write compellingly about how dangerous that element is. 

Of course, such an alignment is something that could NEVER, EVER, happen in our country. ( )

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 07:39 PM)xxlt Wrote:  Nixon actually was elected in a landslide and thought to be untouchable. Then it turned out everyone was wrong. Trump (mighr have - the claims no votes were changed look shakier everyday) won an election by about the combined capacities of the Michigan and OSU stadiums. If the process begins it is possible that Trump could be removed.

The public does not vote on impeachment, and when Nixon was impeached the Democrats held big majorities in both houses.

Republicans control the Senate and will not impeach Trump.  People may not agree with what Trump did, but obstructing an investigation is not seen as that bad when the investigation does not find any crime.  

[Dill]

(06-04-2019, 08:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The public does not vote on impeachment, and when Nixon was impeached the Democrats held big majorities in both houses.

Republicans control the Senate and will not impeach Trump.  People may not agree with what Trump did, but obstructing an investigation is not seen as that bad when the investigation does not find any crime.  

Any obstructed investigation has an automatic asterisk after it.

Many will see obstruction as "that bad" when they understand a sitting president, the top law enforcement officer in the land, was ordering people to fire a special counsel to obstruct, and then to falsify the record to hide that order.

The continued obstructive behavior won't help either. Nor will the increasing partisan behavior of the DOJ.

[Dill]

(06-04-2019, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  A failed impeachment would make Trump giddy, and the Senates will not remove him.

2.  While we need to be wary of guys like Trump we have to remember that our country has survived Presidents suspending Habeas Corpus (Lincoln); attempting to expand the Supreme Court to pack it with supporters of the President (FDR); and forcing two Attorney Generals to resign before getting one to fire the special prosecutor appointed to investigate him (Nixon).  Trump may bluster, but he has not gone as far as any of these previous Presidents.

As for the country as a whole things may seem bad now but here is a little perspective.  This country lost its shit when one person died in Charlottesville in '17, but in 1992 fifty-three people were killed in the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict.  The death tolls of the race riots in the 60's are staggering (Detroit 43, Watts 34, Newark 26, Chicago 11).  And then there were the students gunned down protesting the Vietnam war.  In just three school shootings (Kent State, South Carolina State, Jackson State) police/national guard shot 52 students killing 9 (although apparently only the 4 white ones at Kent state really mattered)

I'll share a couple of thoughts on this, Fred.

1. Failed or not, I'm still for impeachment, or at least censure, whether the Senate can remove Trump or not. Pelosi is right not to rush. The public no longer reads. It needs hearings, and Mueller testimony, drawn out explanations and reminders of CRIMINAL behavior. Make clear that this is an ethical choice, a matter of principle. Then let the Senate own whatever they do.  Done this way, failed impeachment will hurt more than help Trump.

2. I don't find the Lincoln example very comforting. He was a man of principle, who understood how government worked and what was at stake in the Civil War. His Congress understood why he took measures that needed to be taken in name of greater good. The Depression, not FDR, was the real threat to the US back in the 30s, and his Supreme Court over reach was blocked by a bi-partisan check--back in the day when a Republican Montana Senator could support a Democrat for Congress against his own party. Today that kind of bi partisan, independent action is unlikely.

Nixon is the closest analogy to the current crisis, but again, that conjuncture differs importantly from the present one.  Is there now a Goldwater who could go to the WH and persuade Trump the jig was up? Less than a quarter of the House would have opposed Nixon's impeachment on obstruction charges. Nixon's AG was the principled Elliot Richardson; his deputy was William Ruckelshaus.  Trump has Barr and Rosen. There was no Fox News back then, or a third of the country would have believed the Watergate break in was a Dem hoax to bring down a sitting president and called for an investigation into the appointment of the independent counsel. Do you think the current public is more principled and informed than their fathers and grandfathers?  I don't. Could someone like Trump have been elected in '72?  (Or anytime before 2008?)

I remember the 1960s very well, and agree there was more violence and tension than at present. But I had more confidence in the workings of government back then because I had more confidence in the public. Appeals to historical precedent, principles, arguments and data worked to advance or curtail policy, to elect and unelect. I do not have that confidence today. If enough of the public today knows little about how government works, and cares little, then it really doesn't matter what sort of government was put in place in 1789. If checks and balances become the deep state for enough people, and immigrants become seen as a serious internal threat to American identity, then we have started down the path of Hungary and Turkey.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2019, 08:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The public does not vote on impeachment, and when Nixon was impeached the Democrats held big majorities in both houses.

Republicans control the Senate and will not impeach Trump.  People may not agree with what Trump did, but obstructing an investigation is not seen as that bad when the investigation does not find any crime.  

Fred, apparently unique among the left leaning posters here, sees the danger.  Impeach has been the battle cry since Trump was elected.  No smoking gun has been found since.  While there is evidence of some wrongdoing, none of it is objectively sound beyond doubt.  If the Dems attempt to impeach they play right into Trump's hand that the "deep state" is trying to usurp the will of the people.  He would argue that one need only look at the calls for impeachment the moment he won the election.  The Dems will look like a tool of the "deep state" attempting to subvert the democratic process if they vote to impeach, a vote doomed to ultimate failure.

I was right about the whole 2016 election long before most others, trust me on this.  If the House impeaches Trump he's a shoo-in for a second term and Pelosi realizes this.

[Dill]

(06-05-2019, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, apparently unique among the left leaning posters here, sees the danger.  Impeach has been the battle cry since Trump was elected.  No smoking gun has been found since.  While there is evidence of some wrongdoing, none of it is objectively sound beyond doubt.  If the Dems attempt to impeach they play right into Trump's hand that the "deep state" is trying to usurp the will of the people.  He would argue that one need only look at the calls for impeachment the moment he won the election.  The Dems will look like a tool of the "deep state" attempting to subvert the democratic process if they vote to impeach, a vote doomed to ultimate failure.

I was right about the whole 2016 election long before most others, trust me on this.  If the House impeaches Trump he's a shoo-in for a second term and Pelosi realizes this.

You saying the evidence of obstruction laid out in the Mueller Report is not "objectively sound"?  Why isn't ordering a subordinate to falsify the evidential record a "smoking gun"?

Trump pointing to "calls for impeachment" the moment he was elected would not move the dial in any direction. No doubt those who plan to vote for him in any case would get noisier (though some are confused that Barr's summary missed the details of obstruction, and they weren't reported on Fox either). But it's not the kind of argument that would sway the truly independent.  At least one Republican Congressman has broken ranks. The illiberal efforts to keep the rest in line will not be a particularly good optic for the party of Freedom who love to hand out pocket copies of the Constitution.

An impeachment that "fails" because Republicans put party before country doesn't hurt the Democrats. The majority of the country still disapproves of Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2019, 02:20 AM)Dill Wrote: You saying the evidence of obstruction laid out in the Mueller Report is not "objectively sound"?  Why isn't ordering a subordinate to falsify the evidential record a "smoking gun"?

I honestly haven't read the whole report, please cite your example. 

Quote:Trump pointing to "calls for impeachment" the moment he was elected would not move the dial in any direction.

This is an astonishingly naive statement from a person as learned as you.

Quote:No doubt those who plan to vote for him in any case would get noisier (though some are confused that Barr's summary missed the details of obstruction, and they weren't reported on Fox either). But it's not the kind of argument that would sway the truly independent.

 
You actually think calls to impeach from the moment of his election don't make the current calls for impeachment ring hollow for the common voter?  If you truly believe this I almost envy the bubble you reside in.

Quote:At least one Republican Congressman has broken ranks.

A whole one?!?!?!  I now admit every argument I have made in this vein is wholly wrong.

Quote:The illiberal efforts to keep the rest in line will not be a particularly good optic for the party of Freedom who love to hand out pocket copies of the Constitution.

Honestly, and you know this, it won't take much, if any, effort to keep the others "in line".

Quote:An impeachment that "fails" because Republicans put party before country doesn't hurt the Democrats. The majority of the country still disapproves of Trump.

Again, this is only in your mind.  Your bubble is reality for you, not for everyone else.  I think you severely overestimate the support for your position outside of it.

[hollodero]

(06-05-2019, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Impeach has been the battle cry since Trump was elected.

I agree with your take, only this one I see slightly different. It were just a few that cried impeachment from the start. Maxine Waters (I learned from you), that bearded guy (I wana say Al Green, but I refuse to google irrelevant people), Tom Steyer who's not a party member as far as I know...? Maybe some others, but not that many. The number of people open for impeachment has increased significantly since the Mueller report. It's not the same kind of movement as it was before.

Also, while I agree Amash alone does move no needles, he makes a really compelling case for duty over party politics - and why he thinks his duty is calling for impeachment. He does have good points for sure.

[Dill]

(06-05-2019, 02:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
I honestly haven't read the whole report, please cite your example. 

This is an astonishingly naive statement from a person as learned as you.

You actually think calls to impeach from the moment of his election don't make the current calls for impeachment ring hollow for the common voter?  If you truly believe this I almost envy the bubble you reside in.

Here is a link to a PDF of the Report. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf.
Good idea to download this. People will be referring to it in the months to come.

For the incident mentioned in my post, go to page 114 of Vol. II.

Start reading at --> 2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports

Better yet, just read the whole vol II, all the bragging to the Russians about the Comey firing, witness tampering (Manafort, Flynn, Cohen) attempts to coerce Sessions into recusing himself and limiting the investigation, etc. Remember Trump is trying to block an investigation into an attack by a foreign adversary, protecting himself instead of the nation he swore to defend.

Whether calls for impeachment "ring hollow" will depend in large part on whether and how the House holds public hearings on the Mueller Report.

At the moment, my "bubble" includes a full reading of the Mueller Report and some sense of how to interpret it in light of both the Constitution and previous crises (Johnson, Nixon, Clinton).  As I told Fred, it will be the burden of hearings to disseminate the facts of the case and the legal criteria for assessing them. (That's what made the difference in the case of Nixon, who was a more popular president).  It has to be clear that the decision NOT to impeach (or NOT to censure) is to accept criminal behavior in the man tasked with seeing that the nation's laws are enforced--and by the party demanding "rule of law" prevail at the border.

I expect Trump to continue obstruction during such hearings, and that his behavior will become increasingly belligerent and erratic. He will illustrate the behavior of which he is accused. 

[hollodero]

(06-05-2019, 03:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Here is a link to a PDF of the Report. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf.
Good idea to download this.  People will be referring to it in the months to come.

For the incident mentioned in my post, go to page 114 of Vol. II.

Start reading at --> 2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports

A good read. The key might be  "The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel." - McGahn clearly states that Trump indeed gave the order, hence yeah, Trump ordered McGahn to create a false record in that sense. But there is one addendum that states Trump maybe honestly didn't remember his previous words, e.g. him ordering that McGahn has to call Rosenstein because Mueller "has to go". While I would not believe that for one second for sure, I wonder if this is enough to persuade Trump friendly senators and folks that indeed a criminal deed was ordered.

One other aspect of this is that Mueller did not interview Trump - and one thing seems obvious, from all kinds of instances, not just this one: If there were an interview, Trump would almost certainly have perjured himself again and again. He got around that interview simply because he is the president. That saves him (if he's saved). And that is imho alarming enough.

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2019, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, apparently unique among the left leaning posters here, sees the danger.  Impeach has been the battle cry since Trump was elected.  No smoking gun has been found since.  While there is evidence of some wrongdoing, none of it is objectively sound beyond doubt.  If the Dems attempt to impeach they play right into Trump's hand that the "deep state" is trying to usurp the will of the people.  He would argue that one need only look at the calls for impeachment the moment he won the election.  The Dems will look like a tool of the "deep state" attempting to subvert the democratic process if they vote to impeach, a vote doomed to ultimate failure.

I was right about the whole 2016 election long before most others, trust me on this.  If the House impeaches Trump he's a shoo-in for a second term and Pelosi realizes this.

This is the logic touted by most people saying not to impeach, but my problem with it is that whether or not impeachment proceedings occur, the same tactics will be used by Trump in 2020 and his base will be fired up all the same. I truly don't see impeachment proceedings adding to his numbers.

If the House votes to impeach, that is comparable to a grand jury indictment. You're involved in law enforcement, have been for some time, would you not say that what has been seen is enough for an indictment/charges to be filed? Especially considering what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means with regards to impeachment.

Quote:The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

Source: https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

We have a different view on what this phrase means, today, then what was intended by the framers. Now, there has been a piss-poor job of spreading that narrative which is why the majority of the country does not favor impeachment proceedings. Would that change if the public understood what it actually meant? That is hard to say. I think this is why I am much more inclined to think he absolutely needs impeached, though, because given the contemporary, dare I say originialist, view of the phrase, it is quite clear the proceedings should go forward if you take politics completely out of it.

[Beaker]

(06-04-2019, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have typically seen it defined as a combination of nationalism and authoritarianism. He rose to the presidency relying on nationalism, and he certainly has authoritarian tendencies. He hasn't been able to completely fulfill those tendencies because of the guardrails of democracy holding him from it, but those guardrails have a lot of dents in them right now.

People hear fascism and all they think of is the end result. The fascist dictators that have made the history books. But those are the "success" stories. For every one of those, there are budding fascists that have tested democracies all over the world, and I truly believe Trump is one of those. There are a lot of people in the field of political science that see it this way, as well. Well respected scholars see proto-fascist tendencies within our country right now, scholars that have researched the rise and fall of democracies at the hands of fascists around the globe.

So people that dismiss the claims of fascism with Trump as easily as you are the ones that don't truly know fascism. The history, the trends, the rise of it around the world. It's more of a concern in this country than you realize.

Trumps election was based more on the pretense that he was not  Washington insider and would do things differently, along with the fact that Hillary was viewed as a terrible business as usual alternative. In other words is was more about change than nationalism. And his tendencys are more about stupidity and entitlement than authoritarianism. He is a spoiled rich person who has always gotten his way and thinks he can bull his way to what he wants in the Presidency like he did when surrounded by yes men in business.

If you provide links to these well respected scholars who label his tendencies proto-fascist, I'm am sure you will find them to likely be heavily left leaning. There are actually very few, if any, parallels in Trumps rise and current running of the office to those of the fascist dictators of the early part if the last century. So no, I am not simply dismissing those calls of fascism off handedly. I see them as ridiculous based upon actual comparisons both during Trump's ascendancy and his running of the office.

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2019, 09:06 AM)Beaker Wrote: Trumps election was based more on the pretense that he was not  Washington insider and would do things differently, along with the fact that Hillary was viewed as a terrible business as usual alternative. In other words is was more about change than nationalism. And his tendencys are more about stupidity and entitlement than authoritarianism. He is a spoiled rich person who has always gotten his way and thinks he can bull his way to what he wants in the Presidency like he did when surrounded by yes men in business.

And that whole "drain the swamp" mantra has also been a common theme in other autocratic leaders as they rise to power. I'm not disputing that Trump is inept at this whole thing, which is to our benefit because it helps prevents him from becoming a success story, but it can't be denied that he rode into office on a nationalistic fervor with an autocrat's attitude. Look at his inaugural address and tell me that wasn't more akin to an address from a dictator than from a democratically elected official.

(06-05-2019, 09:06 AM)Beaker Wrote: If you provide links to these well respected scholars who label his tendencies proto-fascist, I'm am sure you will find them to likely be heavily left leaning. There are actually very few, if any, parallels in Trumps rise and current running of the office to those of the fascist dictators of the early part if the last century. So no, I am not simply dismissing those calls of fascism off handedly. I see them as ridiculous based upon actual comparisons both during Trump's ascendancy and his running of the office.

Unless you off-handedly dismiss academics such as Timothy Snyder, Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, and Lucan Way as "heavily left leaning," then no, they aren't. Well researched and documented scholarly work stands on firm ground.

[Beaker]

(06-05-2019, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And that whole "drain  the swamp" mantra has also been a common theme in other autocratic leaders as they rise to power. I'm not disputing that Trump is inept at this whole thing, which is to our benefit because it helps prevents him from becoming a success story, but it can't be denied that he rode into office on a nationalistic fervor with an autocrat's attitude. Look at his inaugural address and tell me that wasn't more akin to an address from a dictator than from a democratically elected official.

That's more the result of him having been a boss and talking like he would talk to employees from a position of authority than a true dictator....although I can see where those would have similarities. But not really fascist.

Quote:Unless you off-handedly dismiss academics such as Timothy Snyder, Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, and Lucan Way as "heavily left leaning," then no, they aren't. Well researched and documented scholarly work stands on firm ground.

Research of what? How his speeches sound? How he tries to use Presidential authority? Still subjective and not truly definitive.

I am certainly no Trump fan. But I still think those trying to link him to fascism are reaching out of frustration with him.

[Dill]

(06-05-2019, 03:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: A good read. The key might be  "The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel." - McGahn clearly states that Trump indeed gave the order, hence yeah, Trump ordered McGahn to create a false record in that sense. But there is one addendum that states Trump maybe honestly didn't remember his previous words, e.g. him ordering that McGahn has to call Rosenstein because Mueller "has to go". While I would not believe that for one second for sure, I wonder if this is enough to persuade Trump friendly senators and folks that indeed a criminal deed was ordered.

If he can't keep track of his own business, then he has no business overseeing the nation's business, right? In footnote 788 Trump also claims that Kelly said McGahn had refuted the story. And Kelly claims he said no such thing.  Trump never called Megan Markle "nasty" either. Fake news.

Also, is there evidence that Trump IMMEDIATELY disputed this event with McGahn?

Were I president and one of my subordinates falsely told the Times I had ordered him to ire the special counsel, I would very publicly dispute that and probably fire him.  End of story. Why would I busy myself behind the scenes directing that subordinate to WRITE OUT a denial for the record?  Why would I plead that I did not actually use the word "fire" or go on about how the story "looks bad"--as opposed to being FALSE and only that?

Also, if this were a one off, an aberration, one might reasonably question intent and memory, but this action is embedded in a pattern of many attempts to end the investigation, by hook or crook. Strangest point of all--so much of this musing was done publicly.

Imagine bragging to the Russians in the oval office that you had obstructed an inquiry into their attack on our election to protect yourself? By firing the head of the FBI? And the American public only finds out because it was published in TASS. But Hillary . . . .!? lol

It astonishes me that impeachment is still a hurdle to be managed.