RockRaines Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) His ego was hurt. He HAS to have the biggest inauguration crowd ever. There's no way that Kenyan Muslim guy beat him. He's still pushing the landslide lie about the election. Its not even in the top half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Rubio today proved he has no spine. Tillerson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) And what kills me about the crowd size issue, if you had problems with the way your inauguration was covered in the media vs. Obama, fine. Reasonable people will disagree, but attack that issue and complain all you want. That fits your "us vs them" campaign theme. But why go the extra step and tell blatant lies that are easily proven false? You just set yourself up for MORE embarrassment and MORE scrutiny. Jenks, I think he is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Otherwise who even cares? Its like arguing that the Bulls had more people at their Championship parade than the Lakers. Trump won, it doesnt matter if only 1 person showed up. Its the same with his comment about TV ratings or how big his crowd is at the CIA. All of this should be completely trivial. The only other option is that Trump is far more deceptive/devious than we ever imagined, and this is merely sleight of hand to distract from things like the fact he now wont release his tax return or that he wont put his assets in a blind trust. That should be relevant news, but seemingly has gotten buried under "alternative facts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) What some people are cautioning is that it's a form of signaling/loyalty testing that autocratic regimes have used before. Push out stories or statements that are so obviously false and easily shown to be so, and watch who still defends them nevertheless. These people can be considered loyal to you, and those who were hesitant or cautioned against it should be purged out. It also conditions supporters to go deeper into the "you can only believe what we tell you" mindset where any source or piece of information that is derided by the leadership is not to be trusted. At this point I'm more inclined to believe it's just his pathetic narcissism driving it and not some grand Machiavellian strategy, but he does have Steve Bannon whispering in his ear and writing his speeches so it's definitely something to keep an eye on. There's no way I buy that he or his people are smart enough to pull off some grand fascist dictatorship dream. This is all about him being butt hurt over the smallest of slights and not being able to handle it like an adult. The NYT has an article this morning that supports this idea. Apparently a lot of his senior aides were comfortable that he understood the CIA visit over the weekend was a way to mend bridges so to speak. And as soon as Trump got there and started speaking their plan/preparation all went to s*** and they were back in damage control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:13 AM) Jenks, I think he is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Otherwise who even cares? Its like arguing that the Bulls had more people at their Championship parade than the Lakers. Trump won, it doesnt matter if only 1 person showed up. Its the same with his comment about TV ratings or how big his crowd is at the CIA. All of this should be completely trivial. The only other option is that Trump is far more deceptive/devious than we ever imagined, and this is merely sleight of hand to distract from things like the fact he now wont release his tax return or that he wont put his assets in a blind trust. That should be relevant news, but seemingly has gotten buried under "alternative facts." I don't think it is. I don't think there's a nefarious reason for doing what he does. I think he's just a moron and doesn't understand PR or the internet or the fact that the more ammo you give the media, the more the media is going to embarrass/criticize you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) I don't think it is. I don't think there's a nefarious reason for doing what he does. I think he's just a moron and doesn't understand PR or the internet or the fact that the more ammo you give the media, the more the media is going to embarrass/criticize you. That is what I lean towards, but I also do not want to underestimate Trump and his advisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) That is what I lean towards, but I also do not want to underestimate Trump and his advisers. Gotta remember his team of advisors is super weird. He has white nationalists, professional political lobbyists and even another reality TV show star. Its a mish mash of crap that doesnt work well together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) That is what I lean towards, but I also do not want to underestimate Trump and his advisers. That's where I'm at. Laugh at the overwhelming incompetence, but keep an eye out for the warning signs. At the same time they're making these absurd claims and whines about accurate reports of crowd sizes, they're also issuing veiled threats towards the media. And Trump himself spent much of his campaign threatening the media and the first amendment. Edited January 23, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Let's see if Sean Spicer can recover his integrity in the next hour or so. Conway is already toast. Tomi Lahren or Hope Hicks will be the next lambs to the slaughter...but hopefully someone will actually push back against Trump and stand their ground. The scary thing is some really respected media members were shocked that Spicer went so far against previous character in carrying water for the new administration on such a nonsensical issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Every time I hear Tomi talk, I picture a teenager trying to talk down to her parents. When I look at Tomi, well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Lawsuit filed against Trump for violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Filed by CREW with the following people attached: Erwin Chemerinsky - Dean of School of Law at University of California, Irvine http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky Norman L. Eisen - ethics attorney, former Obama administration https://www.brookings.edu/experts/norman-eisen Deepak Gupta, Supreme Court litigator (3 cases currently pending before the court) http://guptawessler.com/people/deepak-gupta Richard W. Painter, ethics counsel, former George W. Bush administration https://www.law.umn.edu/profiles/richard-w-painter Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University law professor, expert in the Emoluments Clause https://www.fordham.edu/info/23186/zephyr_teachout Laurence H. Tribe - Harvard constitutional scholar http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I don't really think much will come out of judicial action, unless if unfavorable it is used to spur congressional overview. But it seems so unlikely that this congress would ever do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I dont think the case will win, but I am not sure that is the point. If they can get it to discovery, then they may be able to force Trump to turn over some documents. Or it could be merely just to create negative press. Either way this is exactly why every other President didnt pull this stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) Every time I hear Tomi talk, I picture a teenager trying to talk down to her parents. When I look at Tomi, well... Shes a click whore that cannot possibly believe the s*** out of her mouth. I mean she claimed people from where "she is from" (Tampa) had never heard of Beyonce. She's found her niche as a White Nationalist conservative who the boys like to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) I don't really think much will come out of judicial action, unless if unfavorable it is used to spur congressional overview. But it seems so unlikely that this congress would ever do that. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:16 AM) I dont think the case will win, but I am not sure that is the point. If they can get it to discovery, then they may be able to force Trump to turn over some documents. Or it could be merely just to create negative press. Either way this is exactly why every other President didnt pull this stunt. Right, there's no way this would make it up through the Supreme Court and actually be upheld, and I'm not even sure what the remedy would be if it were. It'd still ultimately be a political question that would require Congress to impeach him, which isn't something the courts could force. The other option down that hypothetical path would be a full-blown Constitutional crisis wherein the Supreme Court orders the President removed from office. Neither of those will happen, though. It's about keeping the pressure on first, and if there's even a slim chance it gets to discovery, it's worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Starting to see a groundswell of folks on social media talking about another mass protest on Tax Day to pressure tRump into releasing his taxes. Sign me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:16 AM) I dont think the case will win, but I am not sure that is the point. If they can get it to discovery, then they may be able to force Trump to turn over some documents. Or it could be merely just to create negative press. Either way this is exactly why every other President didnt pull this stunt. Do you know anything about that court and reputation? Any reason to go that district? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:42 AM) Do you know anything about that court and reputation? Any reason to go that district? I dont personally know, but the court does appeal to the 2nd Circuit, which many consider liberal leaning. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html ) Per the complaint they filed it in NY because that is where Trump's business holdings are located. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I am thinking the first line of defense is going to be "standing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) I dont personally know, but the court does appeal to the 2nd Circuit, which many consider liberal leaning. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html ) Per the complaint they filed it in NY because that is where Trump's business holdings are located. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I am thinking the first line of defense is going to be "standing." Oh, duh, sorry I thought this was over his post office hotel in Wash DC, I just lumped them together and didn't look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) Oh, duh, sorry I thought this was over his post office hotel in Wash DC, I just lumped them together and didn't look. Ha no worries, I meant the "per the complaint" because I think they didnt want it to appear that they were "forum shopping." Most people think the 9th is the most liberal appellate court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Doesn't he have immunity from suits/discovery while in office? Doubt those discovery requests go anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) Oh, duh, sorry I thought this was over his post office hotel in Wash DC, I just lumped them together and didn't look. That's included in the complaint, along with his numerous international holdings. I don't know where the majority of them are registered, but I'm guessing that the overall "Trump Corp." or whatever the biggest organization over all of it is called is located in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 12:05 PM) Doesn't he have immunity from suits/discovery while in office? Doubt those discovery requests go anywhere. Jenks, Im not a constitutional lawyer at all, but I believe in US v Nixon, ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/ ) they qualified the privilege. 5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 418 U. S. 707-713. Now obviously that was a criminal case not a civil case, but I really think the endgame is to keep it in the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Pretty sure anything that happened prior to his election is fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/823609680572256256 Spicer tells White House press corps his intention is to tell the truth: “Sometimes we can disagree with the facts” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts