In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 09 2017 14:13 LegalLord wrote: I remember back in 2012 when people were quite displeased with Obama and thought they just had to suck it up and vote for him again. I can't say I was quite that cynical back then, but by the end of his second term he certainly did wear out his welcome. It almost seems that the Dems decided that if Obama was a lesser evil, then perhaps they needed to squeeze a little more mileage out and put up an even worse candidate.
Sad thing is, either way this election went we probably would have had this situation in which the president was perpetually under investigation for not altogether unreasonable reasons. But at least Europe would have liked us more.
We must run in different circles. Everyone I knew from the center to the left were at worst just satisfied with his work. Conservatives I knew liked to nitpick and complain about Obamacare but nothing too bad, more just common stuff when you ideologically disagree.
I think, on the scale of overall perception, Obama was clearly in a precarious situation in 2012. Against McCain it was pretty much the easiest victory one could dream up; McCain just wasn't going to win after being Bush III. But against Romney he was clearly vulnerable. Sure, Obama won handily at the end, but that is in no small part attributed to Romney's 47 percent fuckup. So there were clearly troubled signs there.
By the end of the second term though, definitely a fair bit of resentment, and very thin coattails to ride out of office.
I feel like you're allowing your own view of Obama tint your perception of the overall sentiment towards him. The left were happy with him overall, especially towards the end of his presidency. People from the other party are always going to have a degree of resentment in this political climate and there wasn't anything Obama could have done to change that.
On June 09 2017 14:13 LegalLord wrote: I remember back in 2012 when people were quite displeased with Obama and thought they just had to suck it up and vote for him again. I can't say I was quite that cynical back then, but by the end of his second term he certainly did wear out his welcome. It almost seems that the Dems decided that if Obama was a lesser evil, then perhaps they needed to squeeze a little more mileage out and put up an even worse candidate.
Sad thing is, either way this election went we probably would have had this situation in which the president was perpetually under investigation for not altogether unreasonable reasons. But at least Europe would have liked us more.
We must run in different circles. Everyone I knew from the center to the left were at worst just satisfied with his work. Conservatives I knew liked to nitpick and complain about Obamacare but nothing too bad, more just common stuff when you ideologically disagree.
I think, on the scale of overall perception, Obama was clearly in a precarious situation in 2012. Against McCain it was pretty much the easiest victory one could dream up; McCain just wasn't going to win after being Bush III. But against Romney he was clearly vulnerable. Sure, Obama won handily at the end, but that is in no small part attributed to Romney's 47 percent fuckup. So there were clearly troubled signs there.
By the end of the second term though, definitely a fair bit of resentment, and very thin coattails to ride out of office.
I feel like you're allowing your own view of Obama tint your perception of the overall sentiment towards him. The left were happy with him overall, especially towards the end of his presidency. People from the other party are always going to have a degree of resentment in this political climate and there wasn't anything Obama could have done to change that.
I was happy with Obama then. I definitely remember a large contingent that wasn't, though. He was far more vulnerable than in 08, that much is a fact.
I'm a bit disappointed that someone seems to have taken Trumps phone.
But it's probably the best for your country.
What timeframe will the Mueller investigation aim at? Months? Years? Since it seems the republicans don't worry at all about the quality of Trump his actions (he's new to this ) as long as they are theoretically legal I guess he'll be here a long time after all.
The best for the country might be him hurting himself more and more by tweeting like a madman so the republicans can finally field a President worthy of the office.
On June 09 2017 16:26 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I'm a bit disappointed that someone seems to have taken Trumps phone.
But it's probably the best for your country.
What timeframe will the Mueller investigation aim at? Months? Years? Since it seems the republicans don't worry at all about the quality of Trump his actions (he's new to this ) as long as they are theoretically legal I guess he'll be here a long time after all.
Mueller is known for being an old-school, meticulous kind of guy, so I'd lean on more time rather than less.
Who in their news office thinks this kind of approach does them any good? If loud mirth in the echo chamber really stuck it to the fall guy, we'd have a different occupant in the White House.
It's almost like they aren't trying to do good or take down Trump. It's almost like they aren't the propaganda wing of the democratic party. It's almost like they are just a bunch of companies trying to make money by appealing to democrat's biases. What a shock!
Who in their news office thinks this kind of approach does them any good? If loud mirth in the echo chamber really stuck it to the fall guy, we'd have a different occupant in the White House.
It's almost like they aren't trying to do good or take down Trump. It's almost like they aren't the propaganda wing of the democratic party. It's almost like they are just a bunch of companies trying to make money by appealing to democrat's biases. What a shock!
It's a dumb sensationalistic newspaper saying in a dumb sensationalistic way what's absolutely obvious. If you don't think Trump is a liar, I have a bridge to sell you (It's a great bridge, the best bridge, believe me.)
A federal prosecutor dropped a bombshell in court Wednesday, telling a federal judge that the government estimates that as many as 100 girls may have had their genitals cut at the hands of a local doctor and her cohorts.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward disclosed the information while trying to convince a judge to keep a doctor and his wife locked up in the historic case. It involves allegations that two Minnesota girls had their genitals cut at a Livonia clinic in February as part of a religious rite of passage and were told to keep what happened a secret.
"Due to the secretive nature of this procedure, we are unlikely to ever know how many children were cut by Dr. (Jumana) Nagarwala," Woodward said, referring to the lead defendant in the case, later adding, "The Minnesota victims were not the first victims."
Against Woodward's wishes, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman granted bond to two other defendants in the case: Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, 53, of Farmington Hills, who is accused of letting Nagarwala use his clinic to perform genital cutting procedures on minor girls; and his wife, Farida Attar, 50, who is accused of holding the girls' hands during the procedure to keep them from squirming and to calm them.
The government believes the three defendants, all members of a local Indian-Muslim sect, subjected numerous girls to genital cutting procedures over a 12-year period. To date, the government says it has identified eight victims -- including the two Minnesota girls -- though Woodward said the government estimates there could be as many as 100 victims. She said that's a conservative estimate, and that it's based on Dr. Attar's alleged admission to authorities that he let Nagarwala use his clinic up to six times a year to treat children for genital rashes.
Attar's lawyer, Mary Chartier, scoffed at the claim.
"I think the government has overstated so many aspects of this case and this is one more example of overreaching," Chartier said after the hearing, during which she and another lawyer convinced the judge to set the Attars free.
The defense has argued that the Attars did not engage in any criminal act and that the procedure at issue is a protected religious rite-of-passage that involves no cutting, but rather a scraping of genital membrane. They also argued the Attars are not a danger to the society and have no reason or desire to flee, convincing U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman to release them on bond.
On June 08 2017 23:44 NewSunshine wrote: Show nested quote +
Someone had to force him to put his phone down, one way or another. You know he'd be foaming at the mouth to tweet his fool head off. He's uncharacteristically quiet today.
He will wait until it the hearing is done, then:
A: Conjure up some outrageous claims back at Comey. or B: Say something "shocking" about something unrelated, like "clinton e-mail" or "Obama wiring."
Come on Trumpie, I know you by now! He is actually never really defending himself, he always attacks back.
Who in their news office thinks this kind of approach does them any good? If loud mirth in the echo chamber really stuck it to the fall guy, we'd have a different occupant in the White House.
It's almost like they aren't trying to do good or take down Trump. It's almost like they aren't the propaganda wing of the democratic party. It's almost like they are just a bunch of companies trying to make money by appealing to democrat's biases. What a shock!
It's a dumb sensationalistic newspaper saying in a dumb sensationalistic way what's absolutely obvious. If you don't think Trump is a liar, I have a bridge to sell you (It's a great bridge, the best bridge, believe me.)
I didn't mean to suggest he isn't. My point was that they didn't choose that headline in order to make people think Trump is a liar, or to make people dislike Trump, or to get Trump impeached. They chose that healdine because the people they are trying to get to give them money already dislike Trump, think he is a liar, and want him impeached.
On June 08 2017 23:44 NewSunshine wrote: Show nested quote +
Someone had to force him to put his phone down, one way or another. You know he'd be foaming at the mouth to tweet his fool head off. He's uncharacteristically quiet today.
He will wait until it the hearing is done, then:
A: Conjure up some outrageous claims back at Comey. or B: Say something "shocking" about something unrelated, like "clinton e-mail" or "Obama wiring."
Come on Trumpie, I know you by now! He is actually never really defending himself, he always attacks back.
A it was, then.
Haha, you messed up somewhere with your snipping, I didn't say the A/B bit. Still, spot on though.
On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote: Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony.
Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week.
if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals?
On June 09 2017 16:26 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I'm a bit disappointed that someone seems to have taken Trumps phone.
But it's probably the best for your country.
What timeframe will the Mueller investigation aim at? Months? Years? Since it seems the republicans don't worry at all about the quality of Trump his actions (he's new to this ) as long as they are theoretically legal I guess he'll be here a long time after all.
he'll take the time to do a proper, thorough, meticulous investigation. Which, given the complexity, and compared to typical standards in law, factoring in the fact that he'd like to have some results before 2021; I'd say approximately 8 months to 2 years.
On June 09 2017 13:31 biology]major wrote: The white house is taking the denial angle though, so I wonder how that will play out. They are flatly denying Trump ever said "I need loyalty" and "hope you can let that go."
If no one has subpoenaed the White House for the tapes, I'm really baffled.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ oversight of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election had become “problematic” before he voluntarily recused himself, fired FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
The tantalizingly vague statement, based on facts Comey said he could not discuss in an open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested that FBI leadership knew weeks before Sessions’ recusal that he would have to step down.
As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) noted, Comey first made this assertion in his seven-page-long written testimony, which was released a day before his blockbuster in-person appearance. In that prepared statement, Comey said he immediately briefed his FBI leadership team after President Donald Trump requested he drop the investigation into Trump’s freshly ousted national security adviser, Michael Flynn, in a one-on-one White House meeting on Feb. 14. The officials agreed not to notify Sessions because they expected he “would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations,” per Comey’s prepared statement.
“What was it about the attorney general’s own interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?” Wyden asked.
“Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons,” Comey said. “We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting, that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic and so we were—we were convinced and in fact, I think we had already heard that the career people [at the Justice Department] were recommending that he recuse himself, that he was not going to be in contact with Russia related matters much longer.”
“That turned out to be the case,” he added.
Sessions recused himself two weeks after that Feb. 14 conversation between Trump and Comey, after the Washington Post reported that he failed to disclose two conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the campaign. Sessions had voluntarily offered during his own confirmation hearings that he “did not have communications with the Russians.”
After the Washington Post broke the news that Sessions twice met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the attorney general’s spokesperson confirmed the encounters, saying they occurred in his capacity as a then-senator from Alabama rather than as a prominent Trump campaign surrogate.
The attorney general announced his recusal from both the Russia probe and any “matters that deal with the Trump campaign” hours later.
“My staff recommended recusal,” Sessions said in a March 2 news conference. “I believe those recommendations are right and just.”
During that announcement, Sessions declined to confirm that there was an investigation into Trump’s associates and Russia. He also said he did not “believe” he had met with any Russian officials other than Kislyak.
Trump is reportedly still seething at Sessions over that recusal, which he believes ultimately led to the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the sprawling Russia investigation.
Who in their news office thinks this kind of approach does them any good? If loud mirth in the echo chamber really stuck it to the fall guy, we'd have a different occupant in the White House.
It's almost like they aren't trying to do good or take down Trump. It's almost like they aren't the propaganda wing of the democratic party. It's almost like they are just a bunch of companies trying to make money by appealing to democrat's biases. What a shock!
It's a dumb sensationalistic newspaper saying in a dumb sensationalistic way what's absolutely obvious. If you don't think Trump is a liar, I have a bridge to sell you (It's a great bridge, the best bridge, believe me.)
I didn't mean to suggest he isn't. My point was that they didn't choose that headline in order to make people think Trump is a liar, or to make people dislike Trump, or to get Trump impeached. They chose that healdine because the people they are trying to get to give them money already dislike Trump, think he is a liar, and want him impeached.
The New York Daily News is a tabloid format paper and is sensational by design. Not Boston Herald level of rag, but it is all about being provocative. The debate if the echo chamber is good or bad isn’t really what the NYDN, or any news outlet does. Their readers know what they want.
Want to be told Trump is a liar and bad man: NYDN. Want critical reported and an Op Ed section with a liberal bent: NYT. Want critical reporting and interviews with legal experts: NPR. Want critical reporting with a fiscal Op Ed section: WSJ. Want to be really informed: read everything all the time and make up your own mind.
EPT
) as long as they are theoretically legal I guess he'll be here a long time after all.
