politics Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

You know what, you don't fucking count Bel, you don't live here, and you do not see the U.S. mainstream media, all but Fox blatantly left. This shit was all over the news when Hillary's scandals were coming up again, and they thought she was going to win, but not get the house and or Senate. 

 

Those links took like 5 minutes, of not hard searching to find, but yeah, I'm the one spewing dreck. 

 

But whatever, you lefties going to great lengths to not see the fucking truth is nothing new. 

 

And who the fuck else would be talking about Hillary pardoning herself?   

 

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

41 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Your objectivity is showing again. 

 

Here's another link talking about it.  

 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/does_presidents_pardon_authority_extend_to_a_self_pardon/

 

And another.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/will-hillary-clinton-be-impeached-over-emails-if-she-becomes-pre/

 

And another

https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/11/03/can-a-president-self-pardon/

 

and another. 

https://www.quora.com/If-Hillary-Clinton-wins-the-Presidency-can-she-pardon-herself-for-previous-wrong-doings

 

Another

 

https://canadafreepress.com/article/president-hillary-will-pardon-herself

another

 

https://www.valuewalk.com/2016/11/hillary-clinton-pardon/

 

I could post more links if you want.   

 

But yeah, this wasn't a thing, and it wasn't lefty thing, cause, reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every single one of these is dated Nov 7, 2016.  Apparently it was a hot topic for all of one day.  No wonder I don't remember it.  Looking at these sources, they are not particularly liberal.   Lets go through them.

 

1.  The ABA Journal.  This is the official journal of the American Bar Association.  I'm guessing it does not have a strong political bent other than being pro-lawyer

 

2.  The Telegraph.  Pretty much the paper of record in the UK, generally considered conservative.

 

3. The Wall Street Journal.  Generally pro-business and conservative, very conservative editorial page.

 

4. Quora.com -  this does not even count as a news source.

 

5. Canada Free Press -  I was not familiar with this one, but according to their own description they are "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country."  

 

6. Valuewalk.com - I don't know much about this site but it looks like its mostly business news.  

 

 

I would not call any of these sources "liberal".  To me, it looks like this was a news story that ran for about a day in centrist and conservative media sources and was mostly speculative.  These are not news articles, they are mostly op-ed pieces or legalistic theory-making.

[Belesarius]

2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

You know what, you don't fucking count Bel, you don't live here, and you do not see the U.S. mainstream media, all but Fox blatantly left. This shit was all over the news when Hillary's scandals were coming up again, and they thought she was going to win, but not get the house and or Senate. 

 

Those links took like 5 minutes, of not hard searching to find, but yeah, I'm the one spewing dreck. 

 

But whatever, you lefties going to great lengths to not see the fucking truth is nothing new. 

 

And who the fuck else would be talking about Hillary pardoning herself?   

 

 

 

Yeah... ok. Don't feel the need to engage with you if you are going to take that tone Jeeps. Dial it back a bit... or not. Whatever.

I watch enough media, and follow enough people on both sides of the spectrum to get a decent read on things. I try pretty hard not to echo chamber myself.  My experience was that I didn't see it as a matter of serious conversation amongst any of the politically active liberal folks that I know from the states.  And I know and follow a bunch, and I consume a pretty wide variety of media. 

YMMV.

 

[Sturgeon]

Chill out, guys, take a break.

[Ramlaen]

In other news, McCabe is asking for criminal immunity in return for testifying about the FBI's handling of Clinton's emails.

[Sturgeon]

Whether this takes Trump down, I don't think a truly objective perspective can yet tell. However, what I think folks need to be more concerned about is does this take down the entire leadership of the FBI? Because right now things are not looking so hot for them.

[Belesarius]

29 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Whether this takes Trump down, I don't think a truly objective perspective can yet tell. However, what I think folks need to be more concerned about is does this take down the entire leadership of the FBI? Because right now things are not looking so hot for them.

Every once in a while you need to fire the entire leadership to effect a culture change. I'm not going to lie... if Trump cleans out the entire senior leadership of the FBI?  I don't know if that would make me all that unhappy.

 

 

Not-quite-random aside thought: This is something that I think most of the leadership here would agree with, but you never know.

Race relations aside, and differing positions on how exactly to handle immigration and legit refugees aside, I think that most people on SH would agree that civil forfeiture is about one of the most single bullshit things ever.  Yet this shit apparently is a significant source of funds for law enforcement? That's not fucking sketchy at all...

 

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Chill out, guys, take a break.

 

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Anyhow, it all comes down to this.  We have a president who is claiming he has the power to pardon himself.  Basically, he is saying that he cannot be held accountable for any crime, that he is above the law.  If you don't see this as fundamentally opposed to the most basic ideals on which the USA is supposed to be based on, I really don't know what to say to you.  We elect presidents, not kings.

[Meplat]

7 hours ago, Belesarius said:

. if Trump cleans out the entire senior leadership of the FBI?  I don't know if that would make me all that unhappy.

 

I'd consider it a good start, lacking only in ceremonial tarring-and-featherings .

 

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Anyhow, it all comes down to this.  We have a president who is claiming he has the power to pardon himself.  Basically, he is saying that he cannot be held accountable for any crime, that he is above the law.  If you don't see this as fundamentally opposed to the most basic ideals on which the USA is supposed to be based on, I really don't know what to say to you.  We elect presidents, not kings.

 

Yeah, the optics are pretty bad. At the same time, I don't see how he can pardon himself after impeachment. You can't pardon someone for a crime they have not been convicted of (meaning he can't pre-pardon himself), and removal from office happens automatically with conviction by the Senate (meaning he no longer has the power of presidential pardon). So bluster and hot air aside, I don't see what Trump could really do, legally speaking.

[Walter_Sobchak]

25 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah, the optics are pretty bad. At the same time, I don't see how he can pardon himself after impeachment. You can't pardon someone for a crime they have not been convicted of (meaning he can't pre-pardon himself), and removal from office happens automatically with conviction by the Senate (meaning he no longer has the power of presidential pardon). So bluster and hot air aside, I don't see what Trump could really do, legally speaking.

 

Very true.  More likely he would just fire most of the Justice Department and shut down the investigations and then see if the Congress actually has the balls to impeach him.  I would not be surprised if they didn't.

 

It might even make sense for him to do it right before the midterms, forcing his Republican followers in the House to either protect him or risk pissing off their Trump supporting voters.  Trump is far more popular with the base than your average congress critter right now.

 

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Very true.  More likely he would just fire most of the Justice Department and shut down the investigations and then see if the Congress actually has the balls to impeach him.  I would not be surprised if they didn't.

 

It might even make sense for him to do it right before the midterms, forcing his Republican followers in the House to either protect him or risk pissing off their Trump supporting voters.  Trump is far more popular with the base than your average congress critter right now.

 

 

Sure, although that seems one step ahead of where we are not. Currently, there doesn't seem to be anything to try Trump on.

[Sturgeon]

Increasingly, that does not seem to be true of the Obama administration, however.

 

I love how NBC tries to slant it:

 

Quote

An investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday sheds light on the delicate balance the Obama administration sought to strike after the deal, as it worked to ensure Iran received its promised benefits without playing into the hands of the deal's opponents. Amid a tense political climate, Iran hawks in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere argued that the United States was giving far too much to Tehran and that the windfall would be used to fund extremism and other troubling Iranian activity.

The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system.

The effort was unsuccessful because American banks — themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions — declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.

 

So the Obama admin was doing something shady enough that the fucking banks thought it was radioactive, but that doesn't stop NBC from trying to lionize the guy.

[Walter_Sobchak]

8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Increasingly, that does not seem to be true of the Obama administration, however.

 

I love how NBC tries to slant it:

 

 

So the Obama admin was doing something shady enough that the fucking banks thought it was radioactive, but that doesn't stop NBC from trying to lionize the guy.

 

Presidents working out shady deals with Iran is a long standing US tradition!  Remember when Eisenhower had the CIA hire organized crime in Iran to start protests in 1953 to help get the Shah back in power?  Or when Reagan sold them weapons to support the Contras?  Sounds like Obama didn't have good enough operators to get his shady ass deals done right.  

[Ulric]

Worst. President. Ever. Can't even do shady deals properly.

 

When you fail where your predecessors have succeeded, you need to reevaluate your life. He also lost the range war in Utah. Sad! Black Jesus lost to a bunch of cattle herding Mormons.

[Ramlaen]

Trump commuted another sentence, this time for Alice Johnson.

[Donward]

9 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Trump commuted another sentence, this time for Alice Johnson.

First boxer Jack Johnson. Now Alice Johnson.

 

I want the President just to continue pardoning and commuting people named Johnson until the media catches on.

[Walter_Sobchak]

3 minutes ago, Donward said:

First boxer Jack Johnson. Now Alice Johnson.

 

I want the President just to continue pardoning and commuting people named Johnson until the media catches on.

 

I hope he doesn't pardon Rian Johnson for the crime of ruining Star Wars.

[Walter_Sobchak]

In my attempt to find other people named Johnson who are in need of a pardon for criminal behavior, the best I could come up with was this criminally bad piece of "comedy" by Arte Johnson.  As far as I know, he went unpunished for his crimes.

 

 

[Donward]

Dear Canadians @Belesarius etc.

 

Why are you letting CNN get away with #FAKENEWS by robbing you of one of your cultural identity, specifically the Canadian involvement in helping to burn down Washington DC in the War of 1812? 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

 

According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.

The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

When asked if the comment was received as a joke, one source on the call said: "To the degree one can ever take what is said as a joke. The impact on Canada and ultimately on workers in the US won't be a laughing matter."

 

 

 

[Belesarius]

32 minutes ago, Donward said:

Dear Canadians @Belesarius etc.

 

Why are you letting CNN get away with #FAKENEWS by robbing you of one of your cultural identity, specifically the Canadian involvement in helping to burn down Washington DC in the War of 1812? 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

 

According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.

The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

When asked if the comment was received as a joke, one source on the call said: "To the degree one can ever take what is said as a joke. The impact on Canada and ultimately on workers in the US won't be a laughing matter."

 

 

 

It's CNN. No one actually takes them even remotely seriously anymore.

 

 

[T___A]

I can't believe that I forgot that HRC was not the first person to force their nomination on the Democratic Party thereby causing their defeat to a Republican candidate:

[Toxn]

9 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I hope he doesn't pardon Rian Johnson for the crime of ruining Star Wars.

What was left to ruin?

[Collimatrix]

Another one for the "pro-Trump or anti-Trump?" bin: