Trump’s DOJ ready to hit the war path (11 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Now that the AG is in, she appears to be ready to do Trump’s bidding.

 

[Bayouboy]

I challenge you to show precedent for January 6th. Precedent for DOGE. Precedent for Presidential immunity. Precedent for a twice-impeached, yet somehow reelected president. Precedent for actively rejecting democratic allies in favor of autocrats. Precedent for Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK. Precedent for a very clear intent to run for terms beyond constitutional limits. Precedent for ending birthright citizenship.

To say these aren’t unprecedented challenges is unfathomable.


You see injunctions filed or other impediments. I see norms attempting to hold up, and falling one after another after another.


Your choices are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, or acceptance. I’m pretty much at acceptance, but you’ve still got a long way to go on this journey, friend.

The American people. The voters. Our neighbors and friends. Relatives.

THEY allowed this to happen.

 

[Dragon]

Mark it down - the FBI and DoJ will go after Adam Schiff. He will be jailed somehow, some way.

This - and not a single republican member of the house or senate will dare to speak up against it.

 

[wardorican]

I admit I do believe you’re allowing your faith in the nobility of your profession to blind you to what has been a by-the-book overthrow of our institutions.

The time to stop it was months ago. I’m afraid we’ve already lost and there’s no stopping the train.

No one likes a quitter.

 

[superchuck500]

I challenge you to show precedent for January 6th. Precedent for DOGE. Precedent for Presidential immunity. Precedent for a twice-impeached, yet somehow reelected president. Precedent for actively rejecting democratic allies in favor of autocrats. Precedent for Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK. Precedent for a very clear intent to run for terms beyond constitutional limits. Precedent for ending birthright citizenship.

To say these aren’t unprecedented challenges is unfathomable.

You see injunctions filed or other impediments. I see norms attempting to hold up, and falling one after another after another.


Your choices are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, or acceptance. I’m pretty much at acceptance, but you’ve still got a long way to go on this journey, friend.

I think you have some reading to do my friend.

US history is rife with political abuses and leaders compromised by financial or deluded interests - we have a history of various crises, and in modern times, I think history is well in favor of the period of 1968 through 1974 as being more challenging to both the American political system and American society. In fact, much of the modern system that you and I take so for granted that we don't even know what it was like before, was developed in the mid to late 1970s as a response. The War Powers Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Special Counsel act all flowed from what was seen to be a concentration of executive power shown to be abused by Johnson and Nixon but with a long history that was deemed no longer tolerable.

Lyndon Johnson - who became president after the sitting president had his head blown off by a rifle and with nothing more than congressional resolution based on White House and DOD deception about a minor event - plunged the United States into a foreign war where he unilaterally raised and raised and raised monthly draft calls, sending Americans to die in a jungle. And when the public protested this unprecedented use (abuse) of executive power, they were beaten by police and even shot and killed by national guardsmen.

The Impoundment Control Act resulted from a standoff with Nixon where was essentially refusing to spend appropriated funds on projects and issues he didn't like, but the history of presidential refusal to spend money directed by Congress is long and features many examples of abuses where the mere whim and personal interest of the president resulted in federal funds being withheld. No president ignored congressional intent in appropriation than FDR - citing the emergencies of the Great Depression and then World War II but it's easy in hindsight to see these activities as necessary but they were highly controversial. Numerous FDR programs were struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional, prompting FDR to push for a slate of new justices so that he could change the results.

Ever heard of the "spoils system"? Until reforms in the late 1800s and another round in the 1950s, the federal government was essentially for sale - patronage and bribes were routine. Look up the Credit Mobilier Scandal where certain railroad builders bribed the Grant administration. Look up the Tea Pot Dome scandal where the Secretary of the Interior and others went to prison for selling oil reserves for their own personal enrichment. And Nixon - good lord - people know about Watergate but Nixon's corruption was rampant from his first day in office where he literally sold his support to programs for millions of dollars. In fact, the system was an organized shakedown - Nixon's staff would use promises of support for programs or threats of investigation to receive large, off-the-record (usually cash) donations from companies doing business all over the United States (see Associated Milk, Ruth Farkas, etc.).

We could go on and on.
- Kash Patel? Do you really know what J. Edgar Hoover did to designated targets and "enemies of the state" - often unlawful and unconstitutional?
- Pete Hegseth? Did you know that Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted for Iran-Contra where the Reagan administration literally acted in direct disregard of clear federal law. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara concluded in 1967 that Vietnam was futile and unwinnable yet he continued to support an ever increasing draft and ever-increasing American deaths.

Trump was never actually convicted on impeachment, you know that, and while yes, I think that January 6 was unprecedented from a certain perspective and that it is truly a stain and an error that Americans failed to take action to repair and prevent January 6 scenarios - the fact remains that all it really did was delay the electoral count by about seven hours. In all, 944 people were convicted of crimes relating to January 6 and a great many of them served time. Numerous lawyers were disbarred or sanctioned. And criminal cases are ongoing in several states relating to the fraudulent electors cases.

Kennedy and McKinley were assassinated. Lincoln literally had to come to DC in disguise in 1860 because they knew that if he was seen in Maryland, he would likely have been killed. Kennedy had to send national guardsmen to force southern states to adhere to the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling that had come down years before. People were so angry with Johnson and Nixon that they set fire to neighborhoods and bombed buildings.

You suggest that Trump is a truly unprecedented challenge because we have always been able to presume that presidents "respect norms" and, I gather from your sentiment, that presidents have always acted with the nation's interest in mind - but this is simply not true and suffers massively from a sort of recency bias and a tendency of Americans to see their past as generally just and well-intended even where events in their time were far more tainted by self-interest, corruption, and lawlessness than we understand through the lens of modern hindsight.

Yes, I fully agree that there's a lot to be concerned about - even outright lawlessness - and I think I have made that abundantly clear. I think there is and will be damage inflicted and crisis to be endured. But this whole "Trump has ended America" is just drama at this point, it hasn't actually happened. It's certainly possible that it gets to that point, but there are clearly apt analogies to these kinds of challenges in American history - many of which were even more intense. We had a freakin' Civil War for Pete's sake. But in the meantime, I think it's important to try to keep a fair score of what is actually happening.

 

[bird]

I think you have some reading to do my friend.

US history is rife with political abuses and leaders compromised by financial or deluded interests - we have a history of various crises, and in modern times, I think history is well in favor of the period of 1968 through 1974 as being more challenging to both the American political system and American society. In fact, much of the modern system that you and I take so for granted that we don't even know what it was like before, was developed in the mid to late 1970s as a response. The War Powers Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Special Counsel act all flowed from what was seen to be a concentration of executive power shown to be abused by Johnson and Nixon but with a long history that was deemed no longer tolerable.

Lyndon Johnson - who became president after the sitting president had his head blown off by a rifle and with nothing more than congressional resolution based on White House and DOD deception about a minor event - plunged the United States into a foreign war where he unilaterally raised and raised and raised monthly draft calls, sending Americans to die in a jungle. And when the public protested this unprecedented use (abuse) of executive power, they were beaten by police and even shot and killed by national guardsmen.

The Impoundment Control Act resulted from a standoff with Nixon where was essentially refusing to spend appropriated funds on projects and issues he didn't like, but the history of presidential refusal to spend money directed by Congress is long and features many examples of abuses where the mere whim and personal interest of the president resulted in federal funds being withheld. No president ignored congressional intent in appropriation than FDR - citing the emergencies of the Great Depression and then World War II but it's easy in hindsight to see these activities as necessary but they were highly controversial. Numerous FDR programs were struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional, prompting FDR to push for a slate of new justices so that he could change the results.

Ever heard of the "spoils system"? Until reforms in the late 1800s and another round in the 1950s, the federal government was essentially for sale - patronage and bribes were routine. Look up the Credit Mobilier Scandal where certain railroad builders bribed the Grant administration. Look up the Tea Pot Dome scandal where the Secretary of the Interior and others went to prison for selling oil reserves for their own personal enrichment. And Nixon - good lord - people know about Watergate but Nixon's corruption was rampant from his first day in office where he literally sold his support to programs for millions of dollars. In fact, the system was an organized shakedown - Nixon's staff would use promises of support for programs or threats of investigation to receive large, off-the-record (usually cash) donations from companies doing business all over the United States (see Associated Milk, Ruth Farkas, etc.).

We could go on and on.
- Kash Patel? Do you really know what J. Edgar Hoover did to designated targets and "enemies of the state" - often unlawful and unconstitutional?
- Pete Hegseth? Did you know that Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted for Iran-Contra where the Reagan administration literally acted in direct disregard of clear federal law. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara concluded in 1967 that Vietnam was futile and unwinnable yet he continued to support an ever increasing draft and ever-increasing American deaths.

Trump was never actually convicted on impeachment, you know that, and while yes, I think that January 6 was unprecedented from a certain perspective and that it is truly a stain and an error that Americans failed to take action to repair and prevent January 6 scenarios - the fact remains that all it really did was delay the electoral count by about seven hours. In all, 944 people were convicted of crimes relating to January 6 and a great many of them served time. Numerous lawyers were disbarred or sanctioned. And criminal cases are ongoing in several states relating to the fraudulent electors cases.

Kennedy and McKinley were assassinated. Lincoln literally had to come to DC in disguise in 1860 because they knew that if he was seen in Maryland, he would likely have been killed. Kennedy had to send national guardsmen to force southern states to adhere to the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling that had come down years before. People were so angry with Johnson and Nixon that they set fire to neighborhoods and bombed buildings.

You suggest that Trump is a truly unprecedented challenge because we have always been able to presume that presidents "respect norms" and, I gather from your sentiment, that presidents have always acted with the nation's interest in mind - but this is simply not true and suffers massively from a sort of recency bias and a tendency of Americans to see their past as generally just and well-intended even where events in their time were far more tainted by self-interest, corruption, and lawlessness than we understand through the lens of modern hindsight.

Yes, I fully agree that there's a lot to be concerned about - even outright lawlessness - and I think I have made that abundantly clear. But this whole "Trump has ended America" is just drama at this point, it hasn't actually happened. It's certainly possible that it gets to that point, but there are clearly apt analogies to these kinds of challenges in American history - many of which were even more intense. We had a freakin' Civil War for Pete's sake.

And we may be headed to another Civil War or worse.

There is no such thing as America First. The unwinding of globalization and the potential rise of a tripolar world requires intelligent, thoughtful people working together.

We are fresh out of those.

 

[Incumbent]

Chuck - I think those are all important reminders - (and on a personal level, your views on this are part of the very small amount of hope I can currently still draw from) - but you're having to cite from a lot of different points in history to compare to everything happening in this current administration. That is what amplifies the concern and outrage for so many of us.

I try to imagine the ways we get through this and back to a democracy on the other side, and man, I don't really find any comfort in doing that.

I did hear a pundit last night casually offer that if Trump goes too far, ignores courts, etc., the prospect of something happening like California withholding the money it sends to the federal government. I have no idea if that can realistically be done (I don't mean the legality of it but if it's even possible in structure) but whether it can happen or not, it sure seems like our minuscule hopes rest in desperation maneuvers that will make things a lot worse before any chance they can get better.

As bad as all of this has been, it still feels like we're in a honeymoon phase and that Trump hasn't really cranked up the divisiveness to 11. And he's surrounded himself with sycophants precisely so he won't be obstructed or held accountable.