Impeachment

[dr_codex]

This just in from the proverbial stopped clock:

McConnell noted that under Senate rules during an impeachment trial, the chamber would have to convene on most days and that "senators will not be allowed to speak, which will be good therapy for a number of them."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/466142-mcconnell-senate-will-hold-impeachment-trial?fbclid=IwAR2frvsN-xAmjkj3B0nfsA0J2O14j2l803W8UbIhQZwz2gaTq13ZMqYgdjM

Word, McConnell. Word.

[spork]

"Don't be a fool! I will call you later."

Evidence for invoking Article 25 rather than impeachment, but in any case I'm sure Putin, Erdogan, Kim, Xi, etc. are all laughing at what a moron the President of the USA is.

[mamselle]

And calling the Speaker a third grade politician?

But it was her fault for walking out?

The world may yet turn upside down.

M.

[fast_and_bulbous]

And calling the Speaker a third grade politician?

But it was her fault for walking out?

The world may yet turn upside down.

M.

He couldn't even get the "third-rate" insult right.

[spork]

And calling the Speaker a third grade politician?

But it was her fault for walking out?

The world may yet turn upside down.

M.

He couldn't even get the "third-rate" insult right.

"Even as he discussed the conflict, Mr. Trump effectively confirmed the presence of 50 nuclear weapons at the Incirlik air base in Turkey, violating the longstanding tradition of not publicly acknowledging where such arms are."

[nebo113]

Why does Sondlund seem to be breaking with 45*?

[Puget]

Why does Sondlund seem to be breaking with 45*?

From what I've heard he was never a Trump true-believer. He just wanted to be an ambassador and feel important and used his money and Trump to get that. He got in way, way over his head, and now that the fun's over he's not going to risk his own future for Trump.

[spork]

Why does Sondlund seem to be breaking with 45*?

From what I've heard he was never a Trump true-believer. He just wanted to be an ambassador and feel important and used his money and Trump to get that. He got in way, way over his head, and now that the fun's over he's not going to risk his own future for Trump.

I find the difference between the Nixon and Trump administrations to be remarkable in this regard. From the plumbers unit to CREEP staff to the AG and senior White House staff, Nixon had true believers working for him. Either they were personally loyal or they believed in the conservative Republican anti-communist cause that he nominally represented. Trump, in contrast, was from day one a magnet for fellow incompetent grifters, con artists, and posers who could feed his narcissism. Today alone we've had an admission to what's going to be in the impeachment charges from the White House chief of staff and the resignation of a Cabinet member (Perry, Secretary of Energy). The entire top layer of the executive branch is coming apart.

Edited to add: you can add emoluments to the impeachment charges, given the G7 announcement.

[Puget]

Trump, in contrast, was from day one a magnet for fellow incompetent grifters, con artists, and posers who could feed his narcissism.

Which is ironic because he obviously craves loyalty. But of course when you treat all relationships as transactional, the only relationships you're going to have are transactional (even with your own family). And when the transaction is no longer a good deal for the other party they will jump ship. A lot of people are asking themselves if they really want to go to jail for obstruction and perjury and deciding they in fact do not.

[secundem_artem]

OK - honest question & I'm not sure where else to post it.  I did not grow up in the US and even after 20+ years here, there are many things I do not understand.

What the heck is up with this "executive privilege"?  From what I have seen, Presidents from both parties use it quite liberally.  Since Obama got no love in the house nor the senate, much of his legislative agenda appears to have required executive orders - meaning Trump could just undo them.  Trump on the other hand is clearly using executive privilege to hide behind.

But why have it?  It appears to give a president nearly limitless power.  If congress wants to overturn it, they need to start a decade worth of lawsuits to  do so.  I'm actually surprised that it has taken 45 presidents before we got one who is clearly prepared to abuse the hell out of the process and not much can stop him.

Somebody explain please???

[pgher]

OK - honest question & I'm not sure where else to post it.  I did not grow up in the US and even after 20+ years here, there are many things I do not understand.

What the heck is up with this "executive privilege"?  From what I have seen, Presidents from both parties use it quite liberally.  Since Obama got no love in the house nor the senate, much of his legislative agenda appears to have required executive orders - meaning Trump could just undo them.  Trump on the other hand is clearly using executive privilege to hide behind.

But why have it?  It appears to give a president nearly limitless power.  If congress wants to overturn it, they need to start a decade worth of lawsuits to  do so.  I'm actually surprised that it has taken 45 presidents before we got one who is clearly prepared to abuse the hell out of the process and not much can stop him.

Somebody explain please???

I started writing a response, and as I wrote, I realized I didn't really understand it, either.

How Democracies Die basically explains that the erosion of democratic norms, whatever the actual law or constitution says, is what kills them. There are lots of things that presidents, justices, and members of Congress CAN do, but they don't because they shouldn't. Once that line gets blurred, the end is near.

[spork]

You can trace this back to the bureaucratic expansion of the executive branch to cope with the demands of operating a "modern" state. For a short summary, go to the Wikipedia description of The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Congress has definitely ceded power to the President over the last several decades. The initiation of the Endless Terror War by W., with congressional complicity, helped accelerate the process.

For the record, I am no fan of executive orders and executive privileges, but when Congress becomes divided against itself because of political party radicalization, an executive order is sometimes the only way to implement a policy that the President desires. And then Congress is too fractured to put an end to it. We end up with policies like the Muslim ban, locking children in cages, etc.

[polly_mer]

For the record, I am no fan of executive orders and executive privileges, but when Congress becomes divided against itself because of political party radicalization, an executive order is sometimes the only way

get the damn work done.

For a good portion of my adult life, it's been clear that Washington is enjoying playing games to get a win for that team this week instead of focusing on the hard part of negotiating to come to agreements that help the American people in some way by doing the things that must be done at the federal level (e.g., diplomacy with other countries, not wearing the brightly colored boa to show solidarity).

For example, why does everything come to a crashing halt if we don't pass all the pieces of the federal budget instead of having a standard rollover clause and only need to tinker with the edges based on new information?  Other first-world countries run that way.

[mamselle]

Speaking of negotiating...

I woke up thinking, "Fisher's dictum" that suggests "negotiating will proceed once you know the thing that the other party really wants" (very rough summary of "Getting to Yes,," I know) may be operant here.

An opener like,

"If, in fact, being President has cost you billions of dollars, sir, perhaps you'd like to divest yourself of that unprofitable burden on your income?"

"Well, yes, sir, Mr. Pence could probably step in for you and take over. He seems willing to do that...very good of him, really, sir, to want to help you out."

"And then, yes, sir, you could step away from all this and get back to you balance sheets...at least for a little while, until that case in New York comes up...."

Fantasy in a way (what was that free software that let you animate stuff?)

But in another way, I'm still seeing someone who doesn't deal well with ego pressures and whose superego is going to become an immured prison that may well crack like the dropped shell of a spacesuit.

When I spoke of violence as a threat in this situation, above, I wasn't actually at first thinking of the potential for violence by dismayed followers.

I was more thinking that, as I said then, one needs to keep sharps and guns out of reach....because of the damage a seriously deep narcissistic wound can cause the narcissist to do to themselves.

Bringing the pressures of reality to bear on one living in their own unreal view of the world can make the more severely inflicted egoist decide to leave the source of their pain altogether.

The ranting cabinet monologue makes me think someone's becoming more deeply unhinged...I hope they have a psychiatrist on speed-dial.

M.

[polly_mer]

The ranting cabinet monologue makes me think someone's becoming more deeply unhinged...I hope they have a psychiatrist on speed-dial.

The charges of mental illness don't hold up.    The snippets in the media of rallies and such show more the disconnected, rambling grandpa who probably shouldn't live alone, but I'm not seeing deeply unhinged.

I do see very sheltered behavior common among those who have had money and/or power for long enough that they aren't used to being told that something can't/won't happen and have those assertions stick.

I see the typical "push the red button and get a rant related to someone's personal annoyance" that's not rare in any subpopulation of the US.

I foresee tantrums that are unpleasant. 

I foresee a continued "Do it my way or be fired, regardless of legal, physical, or moral reality that prevents doing it my way".

I foresee display of US military might in ways that probably aren't what diplomats or career ranking military officers would choose as part of a coherent plan to achieve some US diplomatic or humanitarian goals.

I don't see personal violence against self or nearby others.  If that were a thing, then we'd have voluminous reports of thrown objects etc. as a history.

People don't like Trump and Trump isn't a smooth orator, but he's not mentally ill or likely to be violent based on current evidence.