Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Replacing the DoJ attorney's will only get you just about the same result.

As always, thanks.

I was curious if there was some legal way that replacing all the lawyers somehow meant they could refile everything, changing motive etc.

[Elegiac]

As always, thanks.

I was curious if there was some legal way that replacing all the lawyers somehow meant they could refile everything, changing motive etc.

I'd like to meet the coked up judge that lets that fly.

....

:looks at Texas:

[Breccia]

I'd like to meet the

Shh! No time for that! Trump's personally attorney Barr says Trump was right and they'll add the question anyhow!

When asked how the question would be asked, Barr refused to answer.

[Elegiac]

Shh! No time for that! Trump's personally attorney Barr says Trump was right and they'll add the question anyhow!

When asked how the question would be asked, Barr refused to answer.

Hmm, I don't mean to imply that Barr is a fucking snake but this sounds suspiciously like the words of someone who is going to contravene the Supreme Court and just print the census with the question anyway.

Watch Hazel put an injunction out faster than you can type "covfefe".

- - - Updated - - -
@Breccia, I feel like we need a word for "engineering a crisis that could end the future of your party", because there's quite a lot of that going around these days.

I'll start off with a reminder that the Democrats' victory in the midterms was built on campaigning about healthcare. Well, it may very well be that healthcare might be, once again, the defining electoral issue.

Starting on Tuesday, the 5th Circuit is going to start hearing arguments as to whether or not the Affordable Care Act is still constitutionally valid given that the individual mandate was...*ehem*...repealed under unknown circumstances. /s This isn't necessarily news - this case has been a long time coming as part of the GOP's plan to sabotage Obamacare. Why this is significant now is that, depending on the ruling, the final case could end up before the Supreme Court right in the middle of election season.

Whether or not Americans are still supportive of Medicare for All when private insurance is brought into the equation may end up being a moot point. Even if it doesn't, repealing Obamacare is a surefire way to energize the Democratic base.

Somehow I don't think the GOP has quite thought this through...

[Paranoid Android]

It's flouting norms, yes. I can't find the tweet, but it was an ex-Bush Jr. staffer who discussed how the administration never dreamed of using taxpayer dollars or the White House for any political ads for ethical reasons and more. And how Trump is doing both those things and not giving a shit.

This was my original post with his tweet and quote. So yeah it seems shady, against the rules or at least abusing the eff out of them, but we just say "It's Trump" and nothing happens.

[Elegiac]

So, yeah. Turns out Senator Petty Asshole (R-KY)'s ancestors were slave owners. Adds a new dimension to the whole reparations thing.

[Edge-]

This was my original post with his tweet and quote. So yeah it seems shady, against the rules or at least abusing the eff out of them, but we just say "It's Trump" and nothing happens.

Yeah, that's it. This administrations motto very much seems to be, "Who gives a shit about appearances, if it's not illegal we'll do it! Hell, if it's illegal we'll try to do it anyways!"

As much as I want Democrats to turn around and do this back to them, I don't want to see taxpayer dollars wasted on this kind of garbage.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/08/...prices-tv-ads/

A federal judge on Monday blocked a Trump administration regulation that requires drug makers to include their sticker prices in ads.

The decision, which came just hours before the rule was set to take effect at midnight on July 9, came after three major drug makers sued the administration in June, arguing HHS did not have the authority to require these disclosures and that requiring them violated the drug makers’ first amendment rights.

Judge Amit Mehta of the D.C. District Court found that HHS had overstepped its authority in requiring such disclosures. However, he did not rule on the drug makers’ First Amendment concerns.

“To be sure, the costs imposed by the … Rule amount to a rounding error for the pharmaceutical industry,” Mehta wrote. “But that argument misses the point. It is the agency’s incursion into a brand-new regulatory environment, and the rationale for it, that make the Rule so consequential.”

More in the link, but even when they're trying to ACTUALLY do something good, this administration is too incompetent to do it right. Literally, they lose almost every legal battle because they're so spectacularly terrible at their jobs.

Normally this is a good thing for the country, and while this wouldn't have had a huge beneficial impact it's still pretty stunning that Trump and his team can't get even pretty basic shit like this right.

[Elegiac]

More in the link, but even when they're trying to ACTUALLY do something good, this administration is too incompetent to do it right. Literally, they lose almost every legal battle because they're so spectacularly terrible at their jobs.

Normally this is a good thing for the country, and while this wouldn't have had a huge beneficial impact it's still pretty stunning that Trump and his team can't get even pretty basic shit like this right.

I'm pretty sure Mehta is giving a not-so-subtle hint that regulatory shit of this nature needs to come from....Uh...

That one place where the bills live. Hasn't really done anything notable in a while...Oh, Congress.

[Edge-]

I'm pretty sure Mehta is giving a not-so-subtle hint that regulatory shit of this nature needs to come from....Uh...

That one place where the bills live. Hasn't really done anything notable in a while...Oh, Congress.

I'm sure that's part of it, but I'm also sure there are ways to go about it without needing to go through Congress. The problem is that this White House doesn't do anything right, so even things that are absolutely within their powers, like adding a citizenship question to the census, end up blowing up in their stupid fucking faces.

[Elegiac]

I'm sure that's part of it, but I'm also sure there are ways to go about it without needing to go through Congress. The problem is that this White House doesn't do anything right, so even things that are absolutely within their powers, like adding a citizenship question to the census, end up blowing up in their stupid fucking faces.

I consider that a blessing, in that a smarter man could have wrought far worse.

[Edge-]

I consider that a blessing, in that a smarter man could have wrought far worse.

Oh, it absolutely is. Trumps greatest enemy, and the greatest ally of the "Resistance", has been and continues to be the incompetence and ineptitude of Trump and his administration. I'd argue that if they were remotely competent, they'd have a similar win rate in court to other administrations (around 70%), not sitting in the single digits (last I checked 6%, probably closer to 5% now with more legal losses since then).

And I hope they keep it up.

[Blur4stuff]

I guess we get to see how many Trump supporters will now figure out ways to excuse child rape.

[Edge-]

I guess we get to see how many Trump supporters will now figure out ways to excuse child rape.

But what about Bill Clinton?!?!?!?!

[Fugus]

That'd be political suicide... Even Trump wouldn't do that.

Depends on how much he can implicate Trump on this one and judging from some of what I have heard so far, it might be enough to do commit that political suicide because the ramifications for him making a deal could hurt him even worse.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.131b2da36362

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine that year for a story headlined “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery.” “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Trump, in 2002.

Alan Garten, an attorney for the Trump Organization, has said Trump had “no relationship” with Epstein.

Trump, in 2019.

This won't matter, but it's damn amusing that the sitting president has a longstanding relationship with a credible pedophile.

[Felya]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.131b2da36362

Trump, in 2002.
Trump, in 2019.

This won't matter, but it's damn amusing that the sitting president has a longstanding relationship with a credible pedophile.

Trump will ‘last day’ pardon him... they all save the particularly nasty ones for end of term. There is no way Trump lets that guy go down, when he has to have records that were not in Panama papers. We know Trump bragged about busting into dressing rooms, to Howard Stern. There has to be shit from 80s playboy Trump.

Edit: If Epstein goes down, so will a lot of big names. Think about how long he has been protected.

[Edge-]

when he has to have records that were not in Panama papers.

Not like that matters. I mean, do you remember the Panama papers? And the spectacular load of nothing that happened afterwards?

I fully expect Epstein to get out of jail somehow, there's no way a rich guy with that much money and that many connections, even with bulletproof evidence, goes to "real" jail. I'd put money on him getting a functional slap on the wrist with house arrest and some parole, with court orders not to do it again or they'll really lay the hammer down next time.

[Paranoid Android]

Oh Snap! More idiocy from Trump.

Fact check: Trump promotes fake Ronald Reagan quote about him

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/08/p...mpression=true

Trump passed along a tweet from an obscure account that called itself "The Reagan Battalion," which appeared to be impersonating a well-known conservative account of the same name. The copycat account had fewer than 300 followers at the time Trump promoted it.

Its tweet read: "Dear weak Conservatives, never forget that you are no match for 'we the people,' and our president." Attached to the tweet was a photo of Trump and Reagan shaking hands -- with a supposed Reagan quote superimposed on top.

Alright this below is the actual fake quote that Orange Leader commented on.

For the life of me, and I'll never know how to explain it, when I met that young man, I felt like I was the one shaking hands with the president," the supposed quote read.

"Cute!" Trump wrote in his own tweet above the photo.

Here is a link of image of our Orange Idiot thinking Reagan was praising him.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/11...249054208?s=19

Edit: So some cleanup, but the account Trump replied was a burner account with 200 followers and is now closed. So how did he find this? Guess his narcissism radar is huge or again he is an idiot who tweets any old account.

[Elegiac]

But what about Bill Clinton?!?!?!?!

Throw the bitch into the sun along with Acosta and Epstein.

[Ripster42]

Trump, as usual, is a total fucking moron. Replacing the DoJ attorney's will only get you just about the same result. Despite what we've seen in the public eye since Cheeto took office, the DoJ attorneys are some of the best in the country/world. Replacing them after you lose with other DoJ attorneys is the "bestliest" strategy.

I'm guessing it might have more to do with being able to honestly pursue a course of action. Don't think the same lawyers are going to be able to make any arguments to the court that's not going to land them at a misconduct hearing before the bar. The whole reason SCOTUS expedited the case was because it was represented to them that no changes could be made to the census form after june 30. The ACLU has already made indications that it is going to be pursuing sanctions against them.

So, in case anyone thought "maybe Epstein is gonna get off light like he did last time"

I have been given dispensation to start another epstein thread in this subforum as long as it doesn't discuss "the details of pedophilia." If you want, go ahead and do it yourself, but I'd add a disclaimer making the warning clear.