We're Taking Your President From You Episode III: Flynn Likely Flips

[Aehl]

So where do you get your news?

Sure news organisations are not 100% reliable. But retracting a story and/or disciplinary action against reporters who aren't doing their job to the appropriate standard is exactly how you run one responsibly. This is specifically an example of them doing the right thing. There are certainly some systemic biases in mainstream media outlets but those are typically commercial in nature rather than ideological. If you're not counting trash sites and outright propaganda like for example Breitbart, RT etc.

A number of sources, including, and you can laugh if you like I dont care, Rodong Sinmun and Pyongyang Sinmun. NK papers. Their take on things is a window into how they think.

I would not call Breitbart propaganda at all. Unless you consider the New York Slimes or WaPo any kind of credible journalism..which they arent. I read all kinds of sources and news outlets and get a good aggregate of what is going on.

Mate, allow me to remove one illusion you and others seem to harbour...that journalists and media outlets are honest most of the time..they arent. The fracas and outright lies re Governor Palin all the way to the spectacular crash and burn of Dan "Killian memos" Rather are too numerous to LIST, let alone discuss.

I was around when LGF took Rather to the cleaners and proved that he not only ran with a story he knew to be an out and out lie, he then tried to cover up that lie.

The job of a newspaper is to sell newspapers and make money, and as someone who has seen this crap since the 60's...the old adage "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is as true then as it is now.

The media lies every day to you, to me, to others.

Every. single. day.

[Orbitus]

A number of sources, including, and you can laugh if you like I dont care, Rodong Sinmun and Pyongyang Sinmun. NK papers. Their take on things is a window into how they think.

I would not call Breitbart propaganda at all. Unless you consider the New York Slimes or WaPo any kind of credible journalism..which they arent. I read all kinds of sources and news outlets and get a good aggregate of what is going on.

Mate, allow me to remove one illusion you and others seem to harbour...that journalists and media outlets are honest most of the time..they arent. The fracas and outright lies re Governor Palin all the way to the spectacular crash and burn of Dan "Killian memos" Rather are too numerous to LIST, let alone discuss.

I was around when LGF took Rather to the cleaners and proved that he not only ran with a story he knew to be an out and out lie, he then tried to cover up that lie.

The job of a newspaper is to sell newspapers and make money, and as someone who has seen this crap since the 60's...the old adage "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is as true then as it is now.

The media lies every day to you, to me, to others.

Every. single. day.

No, they lie to you because you read sources like fucking Breitbart and Fox News. EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE has a million times better track record at correcting false stories or publishing correct stories in the first place. They have accountability, Fox and Breitbart don't. They actively encourage fake news.

[Canpinter]

You do realize what we're discussing right? Toppling the President of the United States. The leader of the free world. Overturning the results of a Presidential election through a criminal investigation.

You think I'm "okay" with swallowing hard and accepting Pence? I'm not. I was "okay" was Iron Man 2. I'm not "okay" with Pence.

But let's be realistic here. Taking down Donald Trump, which is going to happen, is going to be a historic achievement in and of itself. The chances the conditions are created for a two-fer whereby Pence goes down too in a short period of time? No matter the legal case I don't see it. I think it's too much at once, and Mueller's investigation, while expansive, has finite resources. It will focus on Trump first.

That is NOT to say that Pence can't find himself in serious legal jeopardy in years ahead. I believe he will. But think of the time line: we got a couple of years two wrap these guys up. Do we have time for two? I say we don't. I think we have to choose. And I choose demolishing Trump's Administration.

This is triage, not regenerative therapy.

hypothetical, trump decides to turn on pence and fires him because he thinks hes not loyal enough. trump then appoints some toady who gets convicted in the investigation to. it may not be likely but i think its a distinct possibility.

[Breccia]

hypothetical, trump decides to turn on pence and fires him because he thinks hes not loyal enough

Death Sentence.

First of all, is that...possible?

Second of all, Pence was taken, with Preibus, as a token gesture to the rank-and-file GOP. And Pence is doing exactly what they want: break ties caused by their razor-thin majority. Firing Pence would be an attack they would not accept.

[Thekri]

hypothetical, trump decides to turn on pence and fires him because he thinks hes not loyal enough. trump then appoints some toady who gets convicted in the investigation to. it may not be likely but i think its a distinct possibility.

Good luck getting that toady confirmed. Pence is the link tying Trump to the republican establishment, with him fired the GOP will revolt on Trump in a heartbeat. You don't have to lose many senators to block him in the Senate, especially without a vice president to cast the tiebreaker.

[Skroe]

I could agree, if Trump and Pence were tied to separate investigations. They are not, they are part of the same thing. Anything that points at Trump also points at Pence, right now the investigation is tied much more directly to Pence then to Trump. I think the opposite is more likely, where Mueller takes down Pence, but Congress fails to impeach Trump.

I don't think Mueller can indict Trump, I know that is an iffy legal question, but I think it will have to be the House that does that. Mueller can take down the Vice President though, and I think it is likely he will. He will give anything he has on Trump to the Congressional investigations to feed into an impeachment process, which may fail.

I think if we get rid of Trump, Pence is part of the package, the inverse not so much.

Well I certainly hope so. It just strikes me as, dare I say it, over ambitious.

- - - Updated - - -

hypothetical, trump decides to turn on pence and fires him because he thinks hes not loyal enough. trump then appoints some toady who gets convicted in the investigation to. it may not be likely but i think its a distinct possibility.

Trump couldn't appoint a VP. He'd have to nominate and they'd have to be confirmed by the Senate.

It's kind of fallen below the headlines because of Trump Russia, but in terms of mid and lower level people nominated (now that all the high positions are filled), the Senate is long over giving Trump people spots.

I think whoever a new VP would be, it would have to be someone closer to Mitch McConnell and the Republican Establishment than Donald Trump to even see a vote.

In a wonderful bit of irony, the one man who could probably get some Democratic votes in this regard would be Mitt Romney. But Trump is trying to block him from running (and winning) in Utah to replace Orrin Hatch, who might retire, so there is a snowball's hell chance of that.

[Thekri]

Death Sentence.

First of all, is that...possible?

Second of all, Pence was taken, with Preibus, as a token gesture to the rank-and-file GOP. And Pence is doing exactly what they want: break ties caused by their razor-thin majority. Firing Pence would be an attack they would not accept.

Apparently it isn't possible at all. It didn't sound right, so I googled it. Since the Vice President is elected, not appointed, nobody can fire him. Same as a senator, congressmen, or the President. He can be removed by 2/3 vote in Congress, but Trump can't fire him. He could ask for a resignation, but Pence is in no way obligated to do so.

[Stormspark]

Apparently it isn't possible at all. It didn't sound right, so I googled it. Since the Vice President is elected, not appointed, nobody can fire him. Same as a senator, congressmen, or the President. He can be removed by 2/3 vote in Congress, but Trump can't fire him. He could ask for a resignation, but Pence is in no way obligated to do so.

I saw a vice president forced to resign in Stargate. Played by Ronny Cox. He had done a lot of illegal stuff, so the president held the proof over his head and blackmailed him and forced him to resign, implying he would release it to the press if he didn't. Dunno how well that would work in the real world. Plus the president in that sbow was a real upstanding guy.

[DarkTZeratul]

I saw a vice president forced to resign in Stargate. Played by Ronny Cox. He had done a lot of illegal stuff, so the president held the proof over his head and blackmailed him and forced him to resign, implying he would release it to the press if he didn't. Dunno how well that would work in the real world.

There's no legal reason why that couldn't work.

[Thekri]

I saw a vice president forced to resign in Stargate. Played by Ronny Cox. He had done a lot of illegal stuff, so the president held the proof over his head and blackmailed him and forced him to resign, implying he would release it to the press if he didn't. Dunno how well that would work in the real world. Plus the president in that sbow was a real upstanding guy.

Sure, the key point is that he resigned, he wasn't fired. Blackmail could result in a resignation, sure, but that implies Trump has something to blackmail Pence with, in which case Mueller is probably going to find that out anyway.

[NYC17]

Removing a President is a political act first and foremost. Politics is the art of the policy... a truism that continues to be, well, true.

Do not mistake a simple sober analysis for desire. This country has shown time and again it's political bandwidth *is* limited, which is why I've been saying, as of late, cleaning up Trump-Russia will take a decade or more, and will likely be passed off to a successor for Mueller in a couple of years, and that person will pass it off. I can even see it becoming an institutionalized de-foreign interference counter intelligence / law enforcement op in general.

I want Pence to go down. I think Trump will go down in mid-to-late 2018 to mid-to-late 2019. I do not see Pence going down before or after that. "Before" there is not enough time, after it is the 2020 election.

I think Trump will be removed, Pence will lose the 2020 election surrounded by a mounting legal problem regarding Trump-Russia, and then Pence will face justice after he is out of office.

These investigations take time. I don't think we'll see two traitors fall inside of two years because of that alone.

I don't consider yours a simple sober analysis, so there's no mistaking it for me. I find it shortsighted and incomplete. And I don't mean that as an insult. I just disagree with it vehemently, and explained why. Your reply doesn't really counter my reasoning. Again this is pretty simple. It is unacceptable to leave someone who is complicit, or at best oblivious, in control of the government and pardoning powers.

[Mormolyce]

I would not call Breitbart propaganda at all.

I'm going to have to stop you right there.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely. I have great respect for Ben Shapiro and I agree with a lot of his opinions. Not everything (Never Trump comes to mind, his decision to sometimes sling insults), but I think he hits the nail on the head on a lot of issues that just aren't very popular to speak about. Absolutely a big fan of Ben Shapiro.

Actually my bet was about why a website would have a 6-month old article on the front page. I guessed correctly.

I remember Coney also saying he "couldn't find intent" to violate the law which was his sticking point to your aforementioned quote. I also remember the proper response of "where in the law does it require intent" to which Comey looked blankly and replied that there was no burden of intent.

So basically, you think you know the law better than James Comey?

Or you think he was politically biased and deliberately threw the case out? Which side was he even biased in favour of? Because depending on the timeline I saw both being thrown out there lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Which it isn't his place to state that. Also doesn't mean what she did wasn't illegal.

It absolutely was his place to make a recommendation. Loretta Lynch didn't have to take it, but she did. Clearly she believed him.

I jaywalk pretty much every morning, that's illegal too. Ever torrent a film or TV show? Illegal. To be honest both of these things were probably more consequential than Hillary using a private email server. And certainly, there was more intent...

[Dacien]

Actually my bet was about why a website would have a 6-month old article on the front page. I guessed correctly.

Well they didn't have it on the front page exactly. At the end of an article I read from yesterday it had a selection of articles "You might be interested in." That's where it came from.

[Captain N]

Well, you now have zero credibility.

Oh c'mon now Nexx the fact that Breitbart was selling all kinds of Trump merchandise while he was still a candidate and that Banon guy becoming a (short-lived) part of the Trump Administration doesn't mean they're shilling for him.

[Arvei]

Well, you now have zero credibility.

LOL. I was pretty certain before, but now I know for sure he's just another person who's posts I can skip over.

[Poopymonster]

A Pence administration would be dead in the water. The idea that Trump could be removed and the country would be ok with a president who was most likely complicit, but at best unimaginably oblivious, is pretty bizarre.

It's even more bizarre that you'd be fine with it.

A Pence administration scares the bejesus ot of me.(pun....)
Theocrats in power scare me because I'm persona non grata if I don't follow their dogma. I think Pence h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶a̶l̶l̶u̶c̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ is devout enough to think "God put me here" and feel justified in pushing his dark age agenda on social issues.
That he would think a deity put him personally in power, and that his party would move on that delusion to justify anything they can tack on to his agena. Because Jesus(....intended).

[Orbitus]

A number of sources, including, and you can laugh if you like I dont care, Rodong Sinmun and Pyongyang Sinmun. NK papers. Their take on things is a window into how they think.

I would not call Breitbart propaganda at all. Unless you consider the New York Slimes or WaPo any kind of credible journalism..which they arent. I read all kinds of sources and news outlets and get a good aggregate of what is going on.

Mate, allow me to remove one illusion you and others seem to harbour...that journalists and media outlets are honest most of the time..they arent. The fracas and outright lies re Governor Palin all the way to the spectacular crash and burn of Dan "Killian memos" Rather are too numerous to LIST, let alone discuss.

I was around when LGF took Rather to the cleaners and proved that he not only ran with a story he knew to be an out and out lie, he then tried to cover up that lie.

The job of a newspaper is to sell newspapers and make money, and as someone who has seen this crap since the 60's...the old adage "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is as true then as it is now.

The media lies every day to you, to me, to others.

Every. single. day.

Yeah, you lose when you say that the New York Times or the Washington Post isn't credible and then turn around and say that Breitbart isn't propaganda. Anyone that can think, knows that Breitbart is bullshit and that the other 2 have a better track record than ANYTHING that you use. I mean, they broke the Watergate scandal.

[Aehl]

Yeah, you lose when you say that the New York Times or the Washington Post isn't credible and then turn around and say that Breitbart isn't propaganda. Anyone that can think, knows that Breitbart is bullshit and that the other 2 have a better track record than ANYTHING that you use. I mean, they broke the Watergate scandal.

Orbitus: having read your threads and your bile? Pot, kettle, over.

[Orbitus]

Orbitus: having read your threads and your bile? Pot, kettle, over.

Sorry, but I don't post unfounded stories like Breitbart does. I don't post conspiracy theories. Breitbart does. I don't employ white supremacist douches. Breitbart does. There is no pot, there is no kettle, and this isn't over you fucking liar.

[Mormolyce]

Well they didn't have it on the front page exactly. At the end of an article I read from yesterday it had a selection of articles "You might be interested in." That's where it came from.

Haha, that's predictive analytics at work.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. I was pretty certain before, but now I know for sure he's just another person who's posts I can skip over.

Honestly I'm disappointed, I was hoping we could have some kind of real debate about the veracity of news sources, but that kind of statement indicates that the speaker is truth-proof, so what would be the point?