The Trump Presidency Thread

[Scrim 115]

Talia‏ @2020fight Aug 17

Are we going to take down this statue of Trump and Mitch McConnell?

 

 

Holy Shit, that is amazing.

 

I've always said that Italians were the best trolls of all time.

[Balloon guy 158]

"After the statue removals, we will get to the book burnings. Then the purging of the vocabulary."

 

 

Wonder why none of these things mattered when Obama was president.

 

[scuudagouch 15]

crickets....the Dems controlled both sides of congress with BHO for 2 full years and none of this mattered.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

he really is a child

 

kelly cohen‏Verified account

@politiCOHEN_

yep, trump looked without glasses #solareclipse

 

[scuudagouch 15]

yea because glancing up for a moment is going to do anything to your eyes. What is dumber is the fact you and so many others think this has any relevance.

 

when in doubt use your head, don't be a libtard

[Balloon guy 158]

https://nypost.com/2017/08/19/it-staffers-may-have-compromised-sensitive-data-to-foreign-intelligence/?utm_content=buffer61194&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Guess they were right about Russia being in our computers.

 

Just wrong about who let them in through greed and stupidity

[SilentSnow 1]

Trump lies yet again. Republicans don't care since it means billions more wasted on the military and bombing brown people. In other news, water is wet.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-afghanistan-troops_us_599b97abe4b0771ecb06bce2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

 

It does bring up a philosophical question though. Is there even a theoretically possible lie Trump could tell that would bother most Republicans?

[brvheart 1,752]

"most"

 

lol

 

 

Why do you just assume that a liberal writer writing for a liberal newspaper has any idea what actual republicans think about anything? Maybe you should talk to more Neo-Nazis so you can determine what ALL republicans think and believe.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Matt Bors‏

@MattBors

I made this political cartoon in 2010. Enjoy! http://thenib.com/daily

 

[Balloon guy 158]

There is also the reality that constant pressure in Afghanistan is a magnet to the type of Muslims who want to shoot Americans.

 

Much better to have them stay in their own crappy backwater counties and go against armed Marines, rather than have them travel to the west and go against unarmed soccer moms.

 

Everyone was sure Obama was going to pull out and he didn't, same with Trump. Do you think it is possible that we don't have all the facts, and those facts matter?

[Balloon guy 158]

Boy the Russia, Russia, Russia chants sure have disappeared.

 

Nazi, Nazi, Nazi will soon disappear too.

 

Then you guys will only have Chelsea, Chelsea, Chelsea.

 

Sucks to be you.

[GOCUBSGO 77]

Thanks for the update from fantasyland, BG.

[Balloon guy 158]

The republicans are poised to be in power for a long time.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/confederate-statues-gives-the-democrats-another-lo/

 

Because the democrats are convinced their right-think will be accepted by all.

 

And if not, they will just focus on attacking wrong-think.

 

Because that's what America is all about.

 

Thank you from the right, we will enjoy your complete collapse.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Trump pardons criminal Sheriff Joe another racist piece of shit .

 

His lowlights in this Twitter thread.

 

https://twitter.com/...263384087334914

[FCP Bob 1,312]

NYT Opinion‏Verified account @nytopinion 3h3 hours ago

A con-law professor, anticipating the Arpaio pardon, explained why it's a big deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

 

 

At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday, President Trump strongly implied that he would pardon Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who was found guilty in July of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s order against prolonging traffic patrols targeting immigrants. This is not idle presidential chatter: On Thursday morning, CNN reported that the White House has prepared the necessary paperwork, along with talking points for its allies.

 

This is uncharted territory. Yes, on its face the Constitution’s pardon power would seem unlimited. And past presidents have used it with varying degrees of wisdom, at times in ways that would seem to clash with the courts’ ability to render justice. But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies.

 

Many legal scholars argue that the only possible redress is impeachment — itself a politicized, drawn-out process. But there may be another route. If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all.

 

The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, “stop doing that or else.” The “or else” is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the “or else,” the injunction is all but meaningless.

 

But if the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires.

 

 

In American constitutional democracy, democratic choices are limited by restraints imposed by the Constitution. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that neither life nor liberty nor property may be deprived absent “due process,” which the Supreme Court construes to require adjudication by a neutral judge.

 

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

 

I am not suggesting that the pardon power itself provides for a due process exception. To the contrary, on its face the pardon power appears virtually unlimited. But as a principle of constitutional law, anything in the body of the Constitution inconsistent with the directive of an amendment is necessarily pre-empted or modified by that amendment. If a particular exercise of the pardon power leads to a violation of the due process clause, the pardon power must be construed to prevent such a violation.

 

I admit that this is a novel theory. There’s no Supreme Court decision, at least that I know of, that deals specifically with the extent to which the president may employ his pardon power in this way.

 

But if the president can immunize his agents in this manner, the courts will effectively lose any meaningful authority to protect constitutional rights against invasion by the executive branch. This is surely not the result contemplated by those who drafted and ratified the Fifth Amendment, and surely not the result dictated by precepts of constitutional democracy. All that would remain to the courts by way of enforcement would be the possibility of civil damage awards, hardly an effective means of stopping or deterring invasions of the right to liberty.

 

Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows how obsessed the framers were with the need to prevent tyranny. They were all too aware of the sad fate of all the republics that had preceded ours — rapid degeneration into tyranny. One of the most effective means of preventing tyranny was the vesting of the power of judicial review in a court system insulated from direct political pressures. Subsequent enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included the Fifth Amendment and its due process clause, only strengthened the nation’s resolve to prevent tyranny.

 

It has long been recognized that the greatest threat of tyranny derives from the executive branch, where the commander in chief sits, overseeing not just the military but a vast and growing network of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation didn’t even provide for an executive, for fear of what dangerous power he might exercise.

 

While the Constitution, in contrast, recognizes the very practical need for an executive, that doesn’t mean its framers feared the growth of tyranny any less. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of neutral judicial process before deprivation of liberty cannot function with a weaponized pardon power that enables President Trump, or any president, to circumvent judicial protections of constitutional rights.

[Dubey 1,035]

Just another left wing smear campaign. I'm sure ol' Sherrif Joe is a real stand up guy. One of the good guys from the good old days. A true American.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The Hill‏Verified account

@thehill

Trump Cabinet member's daughter calls Trump a "never-served piece of sh-t" over transgender ban http://hill.cm/O5JdoSK

[scuudagouch 15]

NYT Opinion‏Verified account @nytopinion 3h3 hours ago

A con-law professor, anticipating the Arpaio pardon, explained why it's a big deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

 

 

At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday, President Trump strongly implied that he would pardon Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who was found guilty in July of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s order against prolonging traffic patrols targeting immigrants. This is not idle presidential chatter: On Thursday morning, CNN reported that the White House has prepared the necessary paperwork, along with talking points for its allies.

 

This is uncharted territory. Yes, on its face the Constitution’s pardon power would seem unlimited. And past presidents have used it with varying degrees of wisdom, at times in ways that would seem to clash with the courts’ ability to render justice. But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies.

 

Many legal scholars argue that the only possible redress is impeachment — itself a politicized, drawn-out process. But there may be another route. If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all.

 

The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, “stop doing that or else.” The “or else” is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the “or else,” the injunction is all but meaningless.

 

But if the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires.

 

 

In American constitutional democracy, democratic choices are limited by restraints imposed by the Constitution. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that neither life nor liberty nor property may be deprived absent “due process,” which the Supreme Court construes to require adjudication by a neutral judge.

 

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

 

I am not suggesting that the pardon power itself provides for a due process exception. To the contrary, on its face the pardon power appears virtually unlimited. But as a principle of constitutional law, anything in the body of the Constitution inconsistent with the directive of an amendment is necessarily pre-empted or modified by that amendment. If a particular exercise of the pardon power leads to a violation of the due process clause, the pardon power must be construed to prevent such a violation.

 

I admit that this is a novel theory. There’s no Supreme Court decision, at least that I know of, that deals specifically with the extent to which the president may employ his pardon power in this way.

 

But if the president can immunize his agents in this manner, the courts will effectively lose any meaningful authority to protect constitutional rights against invasion by the executive branch. This is surely not the result contemplated by those who drafted and ratified the Fifth Amendment, and surely not the result dictated by precepts of constitutional democracy. All that would remain to the courts by way of enforcement would be the possibility of civil damage awards, hardly an effective means of stopping or deterring invasions of the right to liberty.

 

Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows how obsessed the framers were with the need to prevent tyranny. They were all too aware of the sad fate of all the republics that had preceded ours — rapid degeneration into tyranny. One of the most effective means of preventing tyranny was the vesting of the power of judicial review in a court system insulated from direct political pressures. Subsequent enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included the Fifth Amendment and its due process clause, only strengthened the nation’s resolve to prevent tyranny.

 

It has long been recognized that the greatest threat of tyranny derives from the executive branch, where the commander in chief sits, overseeing not just the military but a vast and growing network of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation didn’t even provide for an executive, for fear of what dangerous power he might exercise.

 

While the Constitution, in contrast, recognizes the very practical need for an executive, that doesn’t mean its framers feared the growth of tyranny any less. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of neutral judicial process before deprivation of liberty cannot function with a weaponized pardon power that enables President Trump, or any president, to circumvent judicial protections of constitutional rights.

 

This entire thought process at best is delusional...irrational, insane, fantasy land, silly. Welcome to the Obama years for conservatives. I realize that Canadians and the rest of the world are irrelevant to our system, even if you guys don't but yes this is how we felt. We hated every choice the man made, we hated his methods, his morals, his lies and his whole administration....and then trump won election.

 

As BHO once said, elections have consequences and you libtards lost!!!! You lost the house , senate and pres, you lost states, gov's and and locals. You have had you asses beat every election since 2010.....suck it up bitches you lost - deal with it.

[brvheart 1,752]

Well, I mean, the dems won the presidency in 2012. So your post doesn't really ring true.

[GOCUBSGO 77]

If you haven't noticed, BG and Scuuda aren't really concerned with facts.

[Balloon guy 158]

You mean like the fact a Trump is president, and will be probably reelected?

 

The fact that trump picked a great SC justice and will probably get one more,maybe 2?

 

Or the fact that the Russian conspiracy is dead, and the nazi label failed to stick?

 

Maybe the fact that all special elections have gone to the right, Republicans are raising way more money than Democrats, and have more governorship than anytime in history?

 

I guess the facts are kind of leaning our way.

[scuudagouch 15]

Well, I mean, the dems won the presidency in 2012. So your post doesn't really ring true.

 

They did win the presidency but even with a popular incumbent the got crushed in the congress, state gov's and state legislatures....just look at the data there will be no argument.

 

The post is absolutely true....simple addition and subtraction will get you there.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

 

 

Or the fact that the Russian conspiracy is dead, and the nazi label failed to stick?

 

 

 

[Balloon guy 158]

 

 

 

Dead doesn't mean some ghoulish dems don't want it to come back to life. But as we all know it's too late and most of America is over it.

[Dubey 1,035]

Trump's recent tweets read like he is very proud that such a big (huge! Record Breaking!) storm hit while he is the president.