Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

He DID run all of US foreign and domestic policy through twitter decrees, so maybe he thinks that's how it works.

lol

NEW: According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump's passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.

— Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) August 15, 2022

It’s always the last place you look (between your ass cheeks, where the last world war went)

Supposedly they had them but gave them back, which is the lie of the century per Republithugs

i will never get over "ReTruths"

^best Expose song

ReTruth, ReJustice, and the ReTrumpian Way

^and now we're on to Sacred Reich

Since posting that Newsweek (!) piece upthread, incl. that the recovered docs incl. a category that can't be declassified by a President, I've seen the statute for that category referenced elsewhere online---CNN and MSNBC's TV talking heads still seem a bit unemphatic about it---I suppose Trump might say he didn't know about that, and lawyers/staff shoulda told him, although some reports indicate that he was warned by somebody inside to give all this stuff back forthwith---speaking that word, and re what previous Presidents did, although that shouldn't determine what happens in this case---take a look in this time lens, my friends at a ruling I'm starting to hear more about, which led me to:

Court Orders Nixon to Yield Tapes; President Promises to Comply Fully
Justices Reject Privilege Claim in 8-to-0 Ruling

By John P. MacKenzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 25, 1974; Page A01

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday unanimously, and definitively, that President Nixon must turn over tape recordings of White House conversations needed by the Watergate special prosecutor for the trial of the President's highest aides.

Ordering compliance with a trial subpoena "forthwith," the court rejected Mr. Nixon's broad claims of unreviewable executive privilege and said they "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."

The President said he was "disappointed" by the decision but said he would comply. His lawyer said the time-consuming process of collecting and indexing the tapes would begin immediately.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the historic judgment in a packed and hushed courtroom. His 31-page opinion drew heavily on both the great cases of the court's past, as well as the pro-prosecution edicts of a court dominated by Nixon appointees.

Only a few times in its history has the court grappled with such large assertions of governmental power. As in most of those encounters, the justices concluded that the judiciary must have the last word in an orderly constitutional system even though its view of the Constitution is "at variance with the construction given the document by another branch."

Brushing aside warnings by presidential lawyer James D. St. Clair that it was in an impeachment thicket, the court handed down its 8-to-0 ruling hours before the House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to open debate on proposed articles of impeachment.

One justice, William H. Rehnquist, disqualified himself because of his previous association with former Attorney General John N. Mitchell in the Justice Department.

This goes with comments by some legal experts that the famously cautious Garland could have invoked one of the three laws he cited, in ordering the retrieval---but having those three laws involved indicates that he was thinking of (at least possible)indictments---so the Nixon ruling is starting to come up as basis for the way documents have been handled---even by presidents, as well as ex-president---before now.

famously cautious garland walking in bare feet on the sharp lawn blades, going "ow! ooooowwwwww!"

It's mind-blowing that this is in reference to an investigation of a former president and not a mobster:

NEW: DOJ is also worried the release of the FBI affidavit underlying the Mar-a-Lago search would "chill future cooperation" by witnesess — particularly when threats related to Trump probe are "not merely a hypothetical concern."https://t.co/TUnPlXWRZY pic.twitter.com/oOdKaycXnr

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 15, 2022

future cooperation is so chilled

Witness and chill.

I have to suppose at this point that anyone who publicly turns on Trump is going to at least have a few armed crazies wandering around their neighborhood looking at house numbers

liz cheney canceled her campaign events (not that she had much of a chance at winning anyway) because of threats

hope she runs for President just to fuck over Trump

she doesn't seem to be very effective at convincing other conservative republicans, unfortunately. but yes, it would be nice to have at least a couple republicans run for president who aren't full on fascists, just to stir the cup a little and see what happens

(yes, i know her last name is cheney)

part of the general disappointment of this era is "rooting" for people like liz cheney, paired with joe biden somehow becoming the president of the united states even though, up until the establishment rallied around him to defeat bernie, i have never heard anyone in my life say that they would like to be president. that sentence is grammatically horrible and i don't care

i guess i do care. about the grammar and also about the banality of what i said. people always are greatly disappointed with the president. people always find themselves rooting for lower-level villain to defeat a high-ranking one

Um, not to be a dick, but define, "people." Liz Cheney and her entire family should be burnt at the stake in front of an audience of the Iraqi people, end of story, fuck them forever.

Like maybe "reasonable" people root for the lesser of two evils, but "reasonable" people have gotten us where we are, so fuck being reasonable.

wait do we fuck them or burn them

burnpit iirc

Table otm. The media narrative being pushed, that Liz is somehow a "good" Republican for speaking out against Jan. 6, when she previously voted with Trump's agenda 93% of the time, is horseshit.

No GOP politician from the last 40 or 50 years deserves any revisionist rehabilitation

People are neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Their specific intentions, actions and consequences are a bit easier to categorize that way. In the case of Liz Cheney, she's got plenty of bad intentions, actions and consequences, but I'm not going to fault her for bashing Trump and the insurrection he fomented. That's one to her credit.

I agree they don't but whatever anti-Trump movement exists within the GOP is still very important considering they have to win every election by the seat of their pants

i'm annoyed but mainly at myself

People are neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Their specific intentions, actions and consequences are a bit easier to categorize that way. In the case of Liz Cheney, she's got plenty of bad intentions, actions and consequences, but I'm not going to fault her for bashing Trump and the insurrection he fomented. That's one to her credit.

speaker for the dead

she can be a bad person but also the specific thing that she is doing re:jan 6th is good. both things can be true.

^^^

Nope, you're still missing it. Cheney is a bad person, actively evil, in fact, much like her father, but she is narrowly useful right now. The Democrats need to hold onto the House; work with Cheney on this one issue while she's willing to work with them; and render her irrelevant once again as soon as possible.

Y’all would defend Kissinger if he was on the Jan 6th committee.

you do realize that the kind of thinking you're indulging in here is indistinguishable from the very popular "lock up every criminal in solitary confinement and throw away the key" school of thought, don't you?

table has the moral high ground, you know. Since we all agreed with the invasion of Iraq and he didn't.

sounds like you do think it is nbd in the grand scheme of things

Liz Cheney and her entire family should be burnt at the stake in front of an audience of the Iraqi people

That's a bit medieval, isn't it? Dick is certainly a war criminal, but does Liz bear any responsibility for her father's crimes? She may have her own to answer for, but she wasn't even in Congress until 2017. Back in the mid-aughts, she was a mid-level State Department official. (She was part of a group formed to pressure Iran and Syria, which was disbanded in 2007 when the Bushies wanted to try to make peace with those two countries.

I just don’t think there’s anything redeemable about Liz Cheney, and quite frankly don’t give a fuck about the “good work” she’s done on the January 6th committee. She’s a fascist.

Aimless, I’m not a Kantian, so what I think about the genocidal Cheney family has little bearing on what I think about even the most violent “criminals” in the US justice system. Your gotcha moments are tiresome precisely because they fail to recognize context, and instead rely on false syllogism to buoy their reasoning.

Your gotcha moments are tiresome precisely because they fail to recognize context

right. the context here is your personal judgement operating on a case-by-case basis. For example, your expressed judgment is that every member of the Cheney family should be burnt at the stake. But, if I were to draw from that statement the conclusion that you favor the death penalty I can see I'd be 'relying on a false syllogism'. You am what you am.

im no philosopher but seems to me it could be useful & maybe even healthy to find a way to talk about politics without indulging in so many hyper violent torture/murder fantasies but ymmv

I think very deeply

How do we talk about people who aided and abetted genocide under completely false pretenses? It might be crass or a rejection of Christ-like logic of turning the other cheek to ask for their heads, but perhaps the fact that genocidaires continue to live comfortable and lovely lives insulated from violence and criticism should also be considered.

Posting this for no reason whatsoever

SIERRA ADAMSON: “That’s an American citizen that’s being targeted without due process of law, without trial. And he’s underage. He’s a minor.”
ROBERT GIBBS: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father.

table literally everyone in this thread agrees that liz cheney is bad, a couple posters remarked that it would be good if the jan 6 comittee which she is a part of contributed to stopping trump, youve spent the entire day fulminating that people itt are trying to rehabilitate her or insulate her from criticism which literally nobody is doing and its tedious, we all hate liz cheney but ok you hate her in the best most violent & correct way, can we please move on now

I don’t get the impression that everyone thinks she is bad, which is why I keep being a tedious asshole, but I’ll stop now.

A primary loss for Cheney is a win for Trump and his personal brand of vindictive cancel culture, it’s as simple as that. I don’t want to see Trump have a reason to celebrate anything at all.

Although I must admit I am glad that he focuses so much more on redressing personal slights than on doing anything at all to advance the goals of the GOP.