Trump, May 2017: 100 days of [unintelligible]

what is the actual point of hashtag-the-resistance? why on earth are all of the twitter centrist hillary dem types so bent on impeachment?

and this is just a v wtf mischaracterization - I see impeachment chatter on twitter from the crankiest cranks of the left, berniebros, Sarah Silverman's celeberal crew etc.

― Οὖτις, Monday, May 15, 2017 5:41 PM (forty-six minutes ago)

i'm having some trouble following goole's #gametheory train of thought but i definitely don't think this is true, it's definitely the centrist/BlueNation types who are pushing most vocally for impeachment ime

Prior to Garland nobody had done what McConnell did. And what's more, I don't think anyone had ever even filibustered a Supreme Court nominees before (someone remind me if this happened w Fortas before he was withdrawn?). It was totally unprecedented.

xp

it's definitely the centrist/BlueNation types who are pushing most vocally for impeachment ime

this could be true, but I don't follow any of them on twitter so idk!

The Democrats did not have a majority in the Senate when Scalia died, making it impossible for them to push through Garland's nomination without any Republicans. Obama could have done a recess appointment (and I wish he had) but, as I understand it, it only would have lasted until January 3rd of this year, at which point Garland would need to go through the confirmation process anyway in order to remain on the Court.

So basically, Obama could have put Garland on the court, he could have been there for a bunch of decisions that went to the liberal wing anyway, and then he could have fallen off of the court again until Trump was sworn in and put forward Gorsuch anyway.

there is also not a lot of overlap ime between bernie bros and the louise mensch disciples, i think your leftist xls needs some recalibrating xp

the recess appointment would've been a real risky move either way, courts might have struck it down or McConnell could've maneuvered around it etc.

nonetheless I did advocate for that course of action at the time

xp

there is also not a lot of overlap ime between bernie bros and the louise mensch disciples

idk when all the hardcore Bernie supporters I know here in SF are tweeting it that's a big enough sample size for me

i have wanted the filibuster gone since forever! i am an accelerationist about nothing except the filibuster. that is, ahem, yes, a different argument than i was making above, which doesn't make much sense given the numbers. whoops. forgot the sequence of events there.

my memory is, as you see, kind of bad. i swear there was another issue where reid nuking the filibuster was a possibility and he didn't.

I 100% support the filibuster because I am a minority and I know what majorities in this country like to do to minorities.

Reid's "nuclear option" move was always strictly in terms of federal judicial nominees - it was never about the SCOTUS (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan all went through relatively smoothly), much less about legislation.

the filibuster is currently standing between us and full-bore implementation of the GOP agenda in congress, btw.

xp

don't doubt for a second that McConnell would be ramming through all sorts of shit with his 51 votes RIGHT NOW if he could

oh i think when just the first push comes to shove he'll roll right over it

i support getting rid of the filibuster but it's dicey because the senate is always going to be an inherently conservative body relative to the general population

argggh pay attention please. McConnell has repeatedly he does not support and has no plans to abolish the filibuster - he could have done it already if he thought he had the votes from his caucus, but I don't doubt him when he notes that this would really be divisive and it's likely there'd be GOP defections if he tried to do it. Dems would all vote against such a move, and all they would need would be a few vulnerable Senators who understand the history of the Senate and party dynamics and losing elections and the fact that traditionally the filibuster has inarguably benefited *conservatives* more than it has liberals. They are not gonna disarm themselves of something they will probably need very shortly.

xp

at this moment McConnell won't do it

McMaster gonna give a statement

Looks like it happened?

Statements from Tillerson, McMaster and Dina Powell come all at once pic.twitter.com/SvGQ7uLrWs

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 15, 2017

Or is McMaster going to give a further statement.

Pretty much those all seem to be hedging.

Another one from Erickson

I am always skeptical of these breathless stories, but I know one of the sources who is pro-Trump and really perturbed at his boss.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 15, 2017

can't we just get a tape of the convo from the Russians? maybe wikileaks can help out

just because Trump didn't reveal 'sources or methods' doesn't mean he didn't give valuable information. as the WaPo article said, "the identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved."

so have I got this right, on 5/9 Trump fired Comey, on 5/10 he shared highly classified info with Russian ambassador sometime before or after a photo-op with the Russian press in the oval office, on 5/11 he admitted to suborning obstruction of justice in the Lester Holt interview, and on 5/12 he threatened Comey with blackmail in a twitter message about secret tapes...

Full week!

multi-xps Whatever McMaster says will be the Trump administration's statement, with McMaster as the delivery vehicle.

Hope he gets the time to reread his book tonight, then.

I see no "malice" -- I see a moron.

yeah, this isn't trump delivering to his superiors, it's trump being a colossal imbecile

As do we all, Mr. Speaker.

.@SpeakerRyan spox on WaPo story: "The speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration." pic.twitter.com/OG9IywhWKJ

— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) May 15, 2017

can anyone think of a dumber head of state? i mean, historically not currently.

i mean i'm trying to think of people i've known IRL dumber than him.

Is mcmaster gonna lie for trump?

do you want to go back to boy kings? roman times?

If McMaster essentially repeats what he's already said, then as has been noted widely already, it's still a non-denial denial. (It's worth noting how Dina Powell's language/tone differs.)

King Lear could turn a phrase but he was a dumbass

Lear had a good speech writer.

loads of inbred monarchs were dumber and more ignorant of the world than trump, they also didn't have nukes

Bullshit from McMaster: he denied what the story hadn't asserted.

So dumb

So if McMaster is in charge of damage control for this, does that mean we should expect him to also be the next to be thrown under the bus by Trump? Seems to be the pattern Trump likes to follow.

Why make a one-day story out of something you can turn into days of this, says this WH, always https://t.co/9vSaaNer0H

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 15, 2017

Live on @CNN, WashPost's @GregPMiller is reacting to McMaster's on-camera statement. "The White House is playing word games here..."

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 15, 2017

Not even Reagan was dumb enough to lose his savoir faire as often as Trump has.

I suspect McMaster just happened to be the most relevant figure readily available, there's no way Trump saw this coming as a problem and strategized about it, that's not what he does

Cryptic.

CNN hinting pretty strongly that this info POTUS allegedly shared traces back to why laptops are being banned on US-bound flights.

— Nick Riccardi (@NickRiccardi) May 15, 2017

well duh, that was obvious from the details in the WaPo story

I suspect McMaster just happened to be the most relevant figure readily available, there's no way Trump saw this coming as a problem and strategized about it, that's not what he does

Perhaps. I saw a comment that apparently the Post asked the White House for comment some hours ago before running the story.

I mean gee, just how do they connect those dots, quality reporting there CNN: It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

xp

(quoting the WaPo story there)

Trump never strategizes about anything. He appears to enjoy tossing blame for his fuck ups to the nearest chump. I'm sure he'll find a way to that here as well.