Caroline Kennedy --- 2020

[j44ke]

I think the analogies between Sally Q. Yates dismissal by Trump and Nixon's dismissal of Archibald Cox are misplaced. Trump was well within the legal parameters of his job description to fire Yates. Nixon was under investigation by Cox at the direction of Attorney General Richardson who hired Cox as special prosecutor after being directed to do so by Congress. The only way that Cox could be fired was if he failed to do his job. Nixon fired Cox because he was doing his job. Afterwards a federal judge determined that Nixon was in error, and he required Nixon to appoint a new special prosecutor, Judge Sirica (that's the right name I believe.) Nixon tried to appoint someone who he thought would not pursue the investigation heartily, but Sirica did indeed pursue the investigation and the rest is history.

Also Richardson was not fired, he resigned after determining that he could not sign off on Nixon's dismissal of Cox. Then Richardson's deputy resigned because he too felt the same way. Then the person who was next in line, the solicitor general, agreed to sign off on the dismissal, so Nixon had him sworn in as acting AG and Cox was fired. The solicitor general was Robert Bork, and his firing of Cox meant that later when Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan, there was no way in hell the Democrats were going to let him reach the bench.

[j44ke]

I think if you look for the extremes, they will always be there. Throughout the campaign, the television news loved finding the barely literate toothless Trump supporter. Now they hunt through the protestors to find the liberal person who's logic is so twisted they can't even put their socks on without tying them in a knot.

We are not being well served by our television news. It is all about visuals and extremes. The best thing you can do to keep yourself informed is to turn off the television and read.

[vertical_doug]

We are not being well served by our television news. It is all about visuals and extremes. The best thing you can do to keep yourself informed is to turn off the television and read.

But after DeVos, little Johnny and Suzy can't read.

[TTX1]

A non-politician elected President IS the revolution. Do you understand this?

It's not a revolution.

Trump is the inevitable result of a broken system.

Revolution is in the queue...

[colker]

And I agree with this!

I saw some FB post from the friend of one of my young (college aged) friends. This woman was attacking a white protester at some march this weekend for holding a sign saying, "We are All Immigrants" because the person holding the sign was white, and white people are Colonists not Immigrants! This is who she's worked up about? Someone who has taken to the streets to stand up for refugees and other new Americans? She doesn't recognize (1) that her analysis is racist (white person = bad) and (2) that she's attacking an ally! There's a real enemy of our open democratic pluralistic society out there, and he's calling shots. The Left is screwed if it thinks this is the moment to go after white people.

How is this young wounded soul ever going to find a way to see common ground with a Trump voter when she sees the person marching next to her as an enemy?

So, yeah, let's find common ground.

This morning I read this quote from Mark Fucarile, who lost a leg on Patriot's Day:

"The president’s job is to protect the people of the United States of America, and I feel that’s what he’s doing," the 38-year-old Fucarile said, crediting Trump for vigilance against the threat of a "Trojan Horse." Fucarile ... told WFXT that "Islamic extremism" needs to be confronted. "They don’t like our ways, they don’t agree with us, and they think it’s OK to kill us. I think people need to wake up and realize, terrorism is a real thing."

I agree with everything he says. I don't want the Bad Dudes here either. I'd just ask him to drill down into who "they" really are. And then we can have a conversation about the actual content of the Executive Order, and about how well it targets likely terrorists.

Yes. I do not disagree there is a real threat from terrorism and that it hides behind civillians. I do not dispute Mexican illegal immigration should be dealt with.. Problem is the measures are brutal, non effective in the real world and it´s just a show to appease a vengeance wish. The wall is another Trump Tower, a personal pyramid.. everything that´s rotten or dangerous will pass by . At the same time it´s pissing off mexico and will halt colaboration on the war against the cartels or even illegal imigration from central america. Mexicans will put pressure to end a collaboration w/ the US that does more damage than peace. The money from the US does not compensate the damages suffered by mexicans on this specific war against the cartels orchestrated by the DEA.
When it comes to terrorism effective measures are counter intelligence actions. Blocking everyone from this or that country is just a brutality show.

[monadnocky]

While we're at it, we should ban people from Lichtenstein, because as many terrorists who have killed people in the US have come from there as all the countries under the current ban combined.

So, using the logic of ban, why not Saudi Arabia? Pakistan (really, for goodness' sake?) Egypt? The largest Muslim country in the world by population - Indonesia? I mean at least be consistent in your xenophobia, man.

This really is genius, though, because, after there continue to be zero terrorist attacks from people from countries affected by the ban, he can point to how effective it was. It's like anti-elephant spray.

[Cookietruck]

this gives an idea of the confusion.
Confusion over Trump's travel ban deepens - POLITICO

remember when the obama admin took a lot of flak for not a having a good website for the rollout of the ACA. lol, this trump stuff is a whole other ballgame.

this brings up a few questions.
trump cares about his image/ratings immensely. will the time come (soon hopefully) when trump decides bannon isn't the man with the proper strategy and kicks him to the curb.

also, nothing brings the country together behind a pres like a good ol' conflict (see bush W.)
is this admin looking to provoke something, anything, so it can react???

[Matthew J]

I think the analogies between Sally Q. Yates dismissal by Trump and Nixon's dismissal of Archibald Cox are misplaced. Trump was well within the legal parameters of his job description to fire Yates.

Perhaps not on par with the Nixon firing,but clearly fired for performing her job as the AG nominee expected her to - leastways when her president was Barack Obama.

[j44ke]

Perhaps not on par with the Nixon firing,but clearly fired for performing her job as the AG nominee expected her to - leastways when her president was Barack Obama.

Yes, that's pretty ironic isn't it? Good ole' uphold the law unless its our guy.

Sally Q. Yates was the prosecutor of the Atlanta Olympics bomber, Eric Rudolph, who was born in Florida. So she knows her terrorism. Perhaps if Trump had added Florida to the list on the ban, she might have signed off on it.

That's a joke.

The common thread of the 7 countries on the list is that Trump does not have any business interests in those countries. Many of the other countries that were equivalent candidates for exclusion do have Trump businesses or investments. Probably just a coincidence though.

[NYCfixie]

I've seen enough encouraging comments from Cory Booker (junior senator from NJ) over the past year to at least consider that he's capable of being "presidential". Other than that, I got nuttin'

...which, obviously, is the problem for many of us.

The Democrats have done well with Junior Senators if I recall:
Pres. Obama (Junior Senator from Illinois)
Sec. Clinton (Junior Senator from New York and Pres. Nominee)

I'm always amazed that NJ can produce people like Chris Christy and Cory Booker.

My wife heard Cory Booker speak a few years ago when he was invited to the k-12 school where she worked by someone who knew him. Apparently he is crazy smart, super nice, and nobody was surprised once they met him.


On election night when it was becoming clear that Trump would win, my wife looked at me and said this, "What the fuck just happened?" and then once she calmed down it was this, "The Democrats have 4 years to get Cory ready assuming Hillary has had enough".

[Saab2000]

......assuming Hillary has had enough".....

I am quite certain we have heard the last of the Clintons, at least in terms of running in a campaign. And I don't think that's a bad thing. They had their run.

And yes, both parties need some new blood, especially the Democrats. But the Republicans too as I think Trump will go down and he could bring down the Republicans with him, which wouldn't be a good thing. There needs to be balance and there needs to be order.

I hope both parties are grooming young, thoughtful men and women to lead them. I'd be very surprised if Hillary Clinton ever ran for office again. It's time for new people, in the Democratic party especially.

[BBB]

I think the analogies between Sally Q. Yates dismissal by Trump and Nixon's dismissal of Archibald Cox are misplaced. Trump was well within the legal parameters of his job description to fire Yates. Nixon was under investigation by Cox at the direction of Attorney General Richardson who hired Cox as special prosecutor after being directed to do so by Congress. The only way that Cox could be fired was if he failed to do his job. Nixon fired Cox because he was doing his job. Afterwards a federal judge determined that Nixon was in error, and he required Nixon to appoint a new special prosecutor, Judge Sirica (that's the right name I believe.) Nixon tried to appoint someone who he thought would not pursue the investigation heartily, but Sirica did indeed pursue the investigation and the rest is history.

Also Richardson was not fired, he resigned after determining that he could not sign off on Nixon's dismissal of Cox. Then Richardson's deputy resigned because he too felt the same way. Then the person who was next in line, the solicitor general, agreed to sign off on the dismissal, so Nixon had him sworn in as acting AG and Cox was fired. The solicitor general was Robert Bork, and his firing of Cox meant that later when Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan, there was no way in hell the Democrats were going to let him reach the bench.

Different factual scenario, but it seems both were fired for doing their job. If the direction (Executive Order in this case) is unlawful, then a person in the position of the Attorney General should not follow it. Of course she could be wrong (and presumably the Supreme Court would be the body to determine that) and no doubt politics played a role also, but being fired for doing your job (or saying no) is not exactly a good look.

The White House is also quite childish and petulant as this statement in response shows - "Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration." Freedom of speech and all, but this must be close to being defamatory.

[monadnocky]

Different factual scenario, but it seems both were fired for doing their job. If the direction (Executive Order in this case) is unlawful, then a person in the position of the Attorney General should not follow it. Of course she could be wrong (and presumably the Supreme Court would be the body to determine that) and no doubt politics played a role also, but being fired for doing your job (or saying no) is not exactly a good look.

The White House is also quite childish and petulant as this statement in response shows - "Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration." Freedom of speech and all, but this must be close to being defamatory.

There was also an official statement that she "... betrayed her country." Kind of chilling.

Edit: actual language was that she "betrayed the department of justice." Still... wow...

[BBB]

Scary stuff, I know. But, it seems like amateur hour at the White House. If I was White House special counsel (or whatever the title is), I'd be having a fit seeing those sorts of press releases roll out.

If you are inclined to fire her as she said "no" whatever happened to something like "We respectfully disagree with Ms Yates interpretation of the Executive Order and have full confidence that it is a lawful direction. In the circumstances Ms Yates position has become untenable and she has been replaced pending the incoming Attorney's confirmation. We thank Ms Yates for her service to the country" etc etc.

[monadnocky]

That would have been a far more appropriate statement, one that would even make her sacking understandable (she was going to be sacked anyway, of course).

Who is writing the White House copy? Dr. Evil? Goebbels? I mean there's no way it's that much amateur hour there. It is definitely intentional. I just can't believe it's due to incompetence or having an intern with a fascist fever dream writing the copy/press releases.

[dogrange]

That would have been a far more appropriate statement, one that would even make her sacking understandable (she was going to be sacked anyway, of course).

Who is writing the White House copy? Dr. Evil? Goebbels? I mean there's no way it's that much amateur hour there. It is definitely intentional. I just can't believe it's due to incompetence or having an intern with a fascist fever dream writing the copy/press releases.

Until things show themselves as otherwise, I think that Trump and co.'s personal and inappropriate criticisms of Ms. Yates and other dissenting voices ("the media" and lots of others) is intentional - use the bully pulpit as an actual bully to (i) bring the overall level of discourse to a trash level, which will help inure the public to the lack of civility and professionalism; (ii) exert a chilling effect on dissent; and (iii) other bad things that I am in too much of a hurry to think through enough to discuss fully on a web forum. Here's a good read from a (according to some) conservative source (former speechwriter for George W. Bush that seems to be in the no-Trump camp).

How Donald Trump Could Build an Autocracy in the U.S. - The Atlantic

[j44ke]

Lots of battles going on with the White House presently. Not least of which seems to be Jared Kushner who along with his wife Bianca Trump seems to be on the outs. He is an Orthodox Jew who keeps the sabbath. She converted. So they are basically incommunicado from sundown Friday afternoon to Sunday morning (no electronic devices allowed during the sabbath.) Note when all the excitement in the White House happened. Kushner was brought into the White House to be Trump's close advisor. That took a lot of doing legally and politically. And here it is, 10 days in and Kushner doesn't briefed at all. So Kushner is livid, blames Bannon and Miller, the architects of the ban proclamation, for the mess.

What's more, B and M used senior Congressional staff to construct the ban and made them sign an oath of secrecy, i.e. don't tell your bosses in the Senate and the House. So now not only was Republican leadership left out of the mix by the White House, the White House's co-conspirators were the people the Republicans in Congress rely on for their own council.

And now the Washington Post is reporting that someone posing as a spouse of a "lawmaker's wife" slipped into the meetings Republicans were holding in Philly, recorded "closed door" conversations, and sent transcriptions to media outlets.

I'm guessing that there are quite a few Republicans requesting sweeps for listening devices in their Congressional offices this evening.

[j44ke]

Here is the Washington Post story. Can't make this stuff up.

Mysterious intruder rattles GOP lawmakers - The Washington Post

[guido]

If this were a novel it never would have made it into print for being too implausible...

[rec head]

Democrats have 10 senate seats up for re-election in 2018, so they will at best be on the defensive to retain those seats and at worst they will be trying to minimize their losses. There are no real opportunities to reclaim seats that are currently occupied by Republicans. So they will need to get their message out clearly and succinctly and try to follow Senator Heitkamp's (ND) success with reaching working class voters.

And based on this last weekend, NOW is also super important. I think Friday afternoons, the traditional time for Presidents to try to squeak through controversial agendas, will be interesting for a while.

I doubt Bannon will go anywhere. He was just elevated to NSA and two generals were demoted to "need to know". Others will leave but not Bannon.

I haven't caught up on the whole thread but there are 36 states that will be looking for governors and a slew of other elections. Lots of the incumbent governors are term limited and therefore can't run again.

I totally agree that the NOW is super important too and that was my point. We can't wait around. Start now for 2018 and keep marching til 2020.