All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[worstblogever]

Does that happen often, where someone runs in the primary against the incumbent of their own party?

Last time was 7 cycles back in '92, when Pat Buchanan ran a long shot, super-racist campaign against then President George H.W. Bush (41). No other sitting president has had a primary challenger since.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You're conveniently omitting that Trump FIRED this FBI director for not making details of his investigation public that he wasn't directly being investigated. The FBI Director investigating his camapign/Cabinet members. That's a form of obstruction.

And Comey, in his memos/statement today, specifically told Trump that he shouldn't say such a thing... because if those facts were to change... (in other words... he wasn't being investigated... YET.)

Its not a criminal investigation, there's no evidence of an actual crime being committed yet, Trump was asking that something be disclosed and may/likely fired Comey when it wasn't.

That's not obstruction of justice. That's not going to get him impeached.

It actually might make Trump's position stronger because Comey's saying Trump didn't care if others were involved as long as it proves him innocent.

It makes Trump look like an insecure cry baby who didn't want to wait for the process to play out and threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way. That's just not criminal.

[worstblogever]

Its not a criminal investigation, there's no evidence of an actual crime being committed yet, Trump was asking that something be disclosed and may/likely fired Comey when it wasn't.

That's not obstruction of justice. That's not going to get him impeached.

It actually might make Trump's position stronger because Comey's saying Trump didn't care if others were involved as long as it proves him innocent.

It makes Trump look like an insecure cry baby who didn't want to wait for the process to play out and threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way. That's just not criminal.

Forgive me if I listen to the trained legal experts on the news giving their expert opinions and not "contrary guy on the internet".

[JBatmanFan05]

Just out of curiosity, as a Trump fan, would it bug the hell out of you if another republican ran against him in the primary and won the candidacy? Would that sour you on that republican candidate at all? I have heard that, I think, Kasich was a possible person to do that, and I know he was anti-Trump during the election, right?

Of course it would bug me, but how much would depend on the particular candidate. Kasich I loathe and he's really unpopular with a big part of the conservative base (but some moderates like him). CNN's apparent affinity for him isn't helping him (and McCain and Graham), nor did people appreciate that Dems wanted to use the electoral college to put Kasich in.

Does that happen often, where someone runs in the primary against the incumbent of their own party?

I'm not well up on the phenomena, my memory fails me a bit on it all. "Five of the six presidents who served between 1968 and 1992 faced [primary] insurrections." Appears less common or serious nowadays.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...president.html
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...nt-presidents/

[BeastieRunner]

Yup. An average of -15.6 is a new low at the RCP poll of polls, too.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html

Trump has never been more unpopular than today.

We'll see what tomorrow and Friday bring. So far he's tracking the "Nixon resigns line" perfectly if you use Gallup's results.

HuffPo: It Will Take More Than Comey’s Testimony To Sink Trump
Wash Examiner: Trump isn't getting impeached anytime soon
Vox: Will Republicans impeach Trump? [Unlikely]
Hill: Top Dems reject impeachment push
Impeaching Trump unlikely -- for now
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...is-crimes.html

I can cherry pick, too!
Talking Points Memo ... First Republicans In Congress Use the I-Word: Impeachment
Breitbart ... Scarborough: If There are Articles of Impeachment Against Trump, the First Will Be ‘Obstruction of Justice’

Fox News ... Cavuto: “Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you.”
WSJ ... A President’s Credibility: Trump’s falsehoods are eroding public trust, at home and abroad.
Politico ... Cities join call for impeachment: A growing number of local governments are clamoring for Congress to act against Donald Trump.
Newsweek (don't worry it's a different story) ... U.S. Cities Demand Trump Impeachment Investigation Over Foreign Payments

Edit: general response, not to the post above.

And it'd still be better if he was voted out in 2020 anyway.

With a President Pence, yes, you'd have a more rational-seeming human at the helm, but he's still pretty awful. And he might not push for some of the things Trump has been pushing for, since he has his own agenda that would take over, but I doubt he'd re-instate some of the stuff Trump has revoked or whatever. Though it's possible we could recover some of our....optics, as far as how the rest of the world sees us. I don't think Pence would be met with same kind of mockery from the rest of the world, maybe?

I still hold that he'll be censured and not run in 2020 if it looks like he'll lose.

I still would rather have 4 crappy years of Trump that any years of Pence.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Forgive me if I listen to the trained legal experts on the news giving their expert opinions and not "contrary guy on the internet".

Okay as long as you're willing to admit you were wrong, when you end up being wrong. Which is the most likely scenario

[worstblogever]

Okay as long as you're willing to admit you were wrong, when you end up being wrong. Which is the most likely scenario

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: Comey testimony establishes Trump obstructed justice. PERIOD.

One legal expert, of a couple I've seen on the networks and online. And others comparing the Comey firing to Nixon's Saturday Evening Massacre.

Vs. "NUH UH!"

I'm pretty comfortable with what analysis I'm accepting right now.

[JBatmanFan05]

I can cherry pick, too!
Talking Points Memo ... First Republicans In Congress Use the I-Word: Impeachment
Breitbart ... Scarborough: If There are Articles of Impeachment Against Trump, the First Will Be ‘Obstruction of Justice’

Fox News ... Cavuto: “Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you.”
WSJ ... A President’s Credibility: Trump’s falsehoods are eroding public trust, at home and abroad.
Politico ... Cities join call for impeachment: A growing number of local governments are clamoring for Congress to act against Donald Trump.
Newsweek (don't worry it's a different story) ... U.S. Cities Demand Trump Impeachment Investigation Over Foreign Payments

At least WBO had a good cherry pick. Sorry, but the most specific articles not involving talking head pundits and very minority Never Trumpers support impeachment being unlikely. If I dug around enough, I'm quite sure I'd find lines in WaPo and NYT articles saying that too. Impeachment is unlikely on any existing grounds thus far, and no evidence of Russia collusion. FBI has been investigating Russia since July, and the FBI provides most of the info to the Senate and House Committees and will provide to Mueller, and Senate and House Committee members of both parties consistently state and restate no evidence yet of collusion. And a couple or a few said they don't expect one to turn up either. (L.Graham joked that Trump can't even seem to collude with his own advisors, let alone Russia)

[Kevinroc]

I think Trump is guilty as all get out. I just don't believe a Republican Congress will impeach him. They want to take health insurance from millions of Americans and cut taxes on the ultra rich.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: Comey testimony establishes Trump obstructed justice. PERIOD.

One legal expert, of a couple I've seen on the networks and online. And others comparing the Comey firing to Nixon's Saturday Evening Massacre.

Vs. "NUH UH!"

I'm pretty comfortable with what analysis I'm accepting right now.

One question: what justice did he obstruct? It wasn't a criminal investigation.

You're going to end up dissapointed picking the talking heads that support what you want.

[jeanvaljean]

I think Trump is guilty as all get out. I just don't believe a Republican Congress will impeach him. They want to take health insurance from millions of Americans and cut taxes on the ultra rich.

The real question is if their hubris and personality disorders will convince them that they won't go down with the orange rust bucket when it sinks.

[worstblogever]

One question: what justice did he obstruct? It wasn't a criminal investigation.

It's funny how you keep saying that the investigation into Russian hacking of our elections that eventually fell on Michael Flynn wasn't a criminal investigation.

Because it was. And by interfering in that investigation to try and remove Flynn from it, Trump was thus impeding/obstructing it.

Again, expert legal opinions versus, "NUH UH." I'm comfortable with what analysis I'm hearing/accepting right now. Because it's based in reality.

[BeastieRunner]

At least WBO had a good cherry pick. Sorry, but the most specific articles not involving talking head pundits and very minority Never Trumpers support impeachment being unlikely. If I dug around enough, I'm quite sure I'd find lines in WaPo and NYT articles saying that too.

Your quality wasn't there, either. That was kind of the point. You cherry picked for bias confirmation.

You also miscontsrue why I did. I cherry picked as a joke on bias confirmation.

If you read further in the post or anything I've posted before, you'd see I think Trump will get censured at worst and won't run in 2020 if it looks like he won't win because his ego can't handle a loss.

Impeachment is unlikely on any existing grounds thus far, and no evidence of Russia collusion. FBI has been investigating Russia since July, and the FBI provides most of the info to the Senate and House Committees and will provide to Mueller, and Senate and House Committee members of both parties consistently state no evidence yet of collusion.

It took years for Nixon and months for Clinton.

0 Presidents have escaped charge free from special prosecutors or counsels. Most have turned up other problems (like Clinton's devil in a blue dress).

SIC and HIC have already corroborated Russian interference and meddling. NSA leak further proved it. It added spearfishing to the swarming, cloning, bot spamming, and bot farming .. not to mention what they've done in other countries.

Collusion? We'll just have to wait and see. Obstruction? If Comey's testimony holds up ... it is already there.

There are too many coincidences to hand-wave away at this point. Hence the special prosecutor.

I'm still leaning on censure at worst. Unless collusion is found, then you're looking at treason.

I lean on censure because I have a gut feeling there will be nominal evidence, just Trump's incompetence at play, and he'll get censured on account of obstruction.

[BeastieRunner]

One question: what justice did he obstruct? It wasn't a criminal investigation.

Obstruction may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone under investigation. The acts by which justice is obstructed may include bribery, murder, intimidation, reprimands, dismissal, and the use of physical force against witnesses, law enforcement officers or court officials.

That would include criminal or intelligence. And if charges are levied, it's still obstruction.

[Tazirai]

You are also incapable of finding flaws withing Bernie Sanders as a candidate, so there's that.

Are you kidding me? I can find flaws in all candidates. Do you think I agree with Bernie on everything? Then yeah we see two differing things.
I differ with him on Gun laws, but I understand his stance in his home state.
I disagree with him on his stance with working with Trump.
I support him on many issues, yes. But You want me to disagree with him because why?
What issues does he support that I should be against?

Like I said, We see two different Nina Turners.