Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

From There’s No Boom in Youngstown, but Blue-Collar Workers Are Sticking With Trump by Trip Gabriel at NYT:

 

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — In May 2016, David Betras, a Democratic Party leader in the heart of industrial northeast Ohio, sent a memo warning Hillary Clinton’s campaign that it was on the verge of losing Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan because she was not connecting with blue-collar voters. These states “should be easy wins for us,’’ he wrote.

 

He said he got no answer. As he sees it now, Democrats are still just as out of touch.

 

Mr. Betras, who recently stepped down as Democratic chairman of populous Mahoning County, said that while Democrats in Washington harp on President Trump’s unfitness for office, his taxes and possible impeachment, the president is solidifying blue-collar support through an aggressive trade war with China, even if his tariffs mean economic pain in the short term.

[Winstonm]

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Deutsche Bank denied a report that said some of its executives rejected the advice of the bank’s own anti-money laundering specialists and prevented some transactions involving entities controlled by President Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, being filed with the government.

 

A truly believable :blink: denial from the same company Forbes wrote about.

 

The problem at Deutsche Bank, however, is that relationship managers and middle managers have repeatedly ignored compliance officers’ findings and punish them when they do their job.

 

Deutsche Bank’s addiction to making money is so all consuming, that regulators should have learned by now that to believe its executives and senior managers, who repeatedly say that they take compliance with money-laundering laws seriously, is as believable as when drug addicts promise that this time, they really will stop using drugs.

[y66]

From The Right-Wing Populist Playbook Keeps Winning by Mark Gongloff at Bloomberg:

 

If you enjoyed the right-wing populist surge that led to President Donald Trump and Brexit, then have we got good news for you: It’s still going strong.

 

It even got a new electoral shocker to its credit this weekend, when conservative Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won re-election after basically zero polls suggested that was a possibility. David Fickling and Dan Moss note the result echoes those aforementioned 2016 surprises in the U.S. and U.K., in that wealthy, liberal cities are growing more alienated from economically struggling rural areas.

 

Australia’s outcome is one sign of many that right-wing populism is still ascendant around the world, writes Tyler Cowen. In upcoming European Parliament elections, for example, Euroskeptics are poised to win more than a third of the seats, notes Romesh Ratnesar. They’re thriving on turbulence and fraying party ties, Romesh writes, trends that aren’t going away.

 

The collapse of Austria’s coalition government this weekend, after a corruption scandal took down the country’s far-right vice-chancellor, is a setback for populists throughout Europe, writes Leonid Bershidsky, fouling plans for a European nationalist coalition.

 

But the Austrian scandal’s impact may be limited, Romesh suggests. And a longer-term solution to rising European populism is to directly address its root causes, Bloomberg’s editorial board writes, by giving opportunities to the working poor, reforming immigration and becoming more responsive to citizens’ needs. Europe’s biggest economy, Germany, sure isn’t helping matters by insisting on running a budget surplus rather than stimulating the continental economy, writes Melvyn Krauss.

 

Investors seem spooked by European populism, but fine with the likely re-election in India of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But John Micklethwait wonders if investors have reckoned with what a second Modi term would look like. He suggests it would probably be much more nationalist, much scarier for minorities – and less investor-friendly. And Modi’s first term wasn’t exactly bold on economic reforms anyway, Mihir Sharma notes. But hey, more economic pain leads to more populism.

[jjbrr]

Ready for a good read?

 

It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.

 

...

 

The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a say pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail. Plaintiffs have not raised a “serious legal question[] going to the merits.” Population Inst., 797 F.2d at 1078. And, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of denying relief. The risk of irreparable harm does not outweigh these other factors. Powerful, emphatic precedent.

 

 

Plaintiffs’ third and final challenge rests on the “pertinency” of the records requested from Mazars. See Pls.’ Reply at 12–14. This argument takes multiple forms, none of which are persuasive.

 

To begin, according to Plaintiffs, for the Mazars subpoena to be valid the records sought must be “‘reasonably relevant’ to [the subpoena’s] legitimate legislative purpose,” and the records demanded fail that test. Id. at 13 (citing McPhaul, 364 U.S. at 381–82). This argument suffers from two problems. The first is that Plaintiffs conflate the concept of “pertinency” with the notion of “relevancy” as used in civil proceedings. “Pertinency” does not require the court to ask, as it would in a civil discovery dispute, whether the documents requested are likely to yield useful evidence. Instead, pertinency “is a jurisdictional concept . . . drawn from the nature of a congressional committee’s source of authority.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 206. The concept appears most often in the context of a criminal conviction for contempt of Congress, in which a person has refused to comply with a subpoena or answer questions posed at a hearing. Pertinency, in this setting, is an element of criminal contempt. See 2 U.S.C. § 192 (making it a misdemeanor for a person summoned as a witness before Congress either to not appear or, if “having appeared, [to] refuse[] to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry . . .”) (emphasis added). The pertinency inquiry therefore asks whether the question posed to a witness is one that fell within the scope of the Committee’s investigative authority, which typically is defined by the resolution authorizing the investigation. See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 207–10; Sinclair, 279 U.S. at 292 (stating that, under the contempt statute, “a witness rightfully may refuse to answer where the bounds of the power are exceeded or where the questions asked are not pertinent to the matter under inquiry”). This is not a contempt case and therefore the pertinency inquiry, properly understood, has no role here.

 

But even if the court were to treat pertinency as akin to a relevance determination, that test is satisfied here. The standard adopted by the Supreme Court is a forgiving one. The subpoenaed records need only be “not plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose [of the Committee] in the discharge of its duties.” McPhaul, 364 U.S. at 381 (cleaned up). Here, the Oversight Committee has shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the President’s financial records. It is undisputed that the President did not initially identify as liabilities on his public disclosure forms the payments that Michael Cohen made to alleged mistresses during the presidential campaign.28 Furthermore, Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations arising from those payments.29 These events, when combined with Cohen’s testimony and the financial statements he supplied, make it reasonable for the Oversight Committee to believe that the records sought from Mazars might reveal other financial transgressions or improprieties. As already discussed, it is not unreasonable to think that the Mazars records might assist Congress in determining whether ethics statutes or regulations need updating to strengthen Executive Branch accountability, promote transparency, and protect against Executive Branch officials operating under conflicts of interest.

 

 

Additionally, the Mazars records could provide the Oversight Committee with clues about the President’s foreign interests or sources of foreign income, if any, which would assist in determining Congress’s obligations under the Foreign Emoluments Clause. This concern is not a new one. In other letters seeking records, one sent to the Trump Organization and the other to the GSA, Chairman Cummings expressly stated that the records sought would be useful in assessing the President’s compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clause. See n. 7 & 8, supra. The records from Mazars likewise could advance this legislative purpose. Pertinency, to the extent it may apply, is thus satisfied.

 

Two more arguments remain. First, Plaintiffs insist that the Oversight Committee cannot be seeking pertinent material because the legislative actions contemplated “extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate,” Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161. See Pls.’ Reply at 15–16. For example, Plaintiffs argue that H.R. 1 is unconstitutional insofar as it adds qualifications for the presidency beyond those contained in Article II of the Constitution. See id. at 16. More broadly, Plaintiffs maintain that any regulation of the “President’s finances or conflicts of interest” would be unconstitutional for the same reason. Id.

 

Plaintiffs’ contention flies in the face of decades of legislation covering the President. For example, the Ethics in Government Act requires the President to report the source, type, and amount of certain income and assets to the Office of Government Ethics.

[johnu]

If the Prez is so much in Putin's pocket, then why did he decide to provide the Ukraine with weapons which counterbalance Russian military strength exerted through their proxies and provide other military support that makes it difficult for Russia to overrun the Ukraine.

 

Those moves were something that King Barack I didn't do for fear of the Russians when such moves might have thwarted the Crimean takeover. He might have bad mouthed the Russians, but couldn't find the cajones to stand up to them.

 

Beside the Ukraine, the Prez has also spent considerable effort to bolster other countries that bear the brunt of the Russian threat -- specifically the Baltic states -- by providing military aid, training, and joint exercises.

Has Fox Propaganda been bashing Obama again this week? :rolleyes: Believe it or not, I haven't been watching that channel in a while. Is next week scheduled for drumming up more support for repealing Obamacare :rolleyes:, or more Hillary bashing :lol:

 

Why didn't Obama send military weapons to Ukraine??? Would you believe it when experts say it was a complicated matter with no clear answer?

 

Why we shouldn't arm Ukraine

 

But Obama abstained from shipping weapons to Ukraine because there was no reason to think they would do much good — and there still isn't. Lethal military assistance combines several unappealing features.

 

It would cost a lot of money that would probably be wasted, since the arms would not be sufficient to stop Vladimir Putin from achieving any military goal he sets. It could induce him to intensify his aggression before our help can arrive.

 

It could expand the destruction of the fighting without changing the outcome. And it's likely to eventually present the U.S. with a choice between accepting defeat and having to use our own forces to save Ukraine.

 

No one really doubts that Putin can prevail in this fight. The think-tank report concedes, "Even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military."

As a student of history like Andrei B-) can attest, the Russians occupied Crimea without breaking a sweat. Taking over the rest of Ukraine will be a little more difficult, but is the US ready to go to war?

 

As for Dennison supporting military aid, there's big money to be made in war, and Dennison's circle of power brokers are in a position to profit from increased military spending. Again, a complicated situation. As the Manchurian President, Dennison has to bend over and take it like a puppet when Putin commands. But there are powerful forces in the US military and government that strongly oppose the Russians, even if the Putin's puppet isn't one of them.

 

As for Dennison being tough on Russia, isn't he the guy who:

 

Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine

This has been discussed often about the Republican platform plank the Dennison and his people changed at the Republican convention in 2016.

 

Of course, this could have been payback for Ukraine not cooperating with the Mueller report

 

Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation

 

The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.

Is that what is known as quid pro quo???

 

Of course, Dennison is pretty tough on sanctions on Russia.

 

Skripal poisoning: Trump admin yet to impose new Russia sanctions required by law

 

Even as the European Union moves ahead, punishing four Russian officials this week in connection with the poisoning, the U.S. has not moved forward with its own penalties. The delay comes as the Trump administration faces intense congressional scrutiny over a Treasury Department deal to lift sanctions on companies that had been controlled by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Oops, that must be the wrong article because it shows Dennison reprising his role as Putin's puppet.

 

But, Dennison is very tough on Putin and has strongly condemned Russian interference in the 2016 elections. :rolleyes: Oh wait, the hacking was done by 400 pound hacker sitting on their bed, and Dennison takes Putin's word over the unanimous findings of US intelligence agencies.

[Winstonm]

The American Oligarchy. Research by Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern:

 

When only the affluent strongly support a proposed policy change, that policy is adopted 46 percent of the time; when only the middle-class strongly support a policy, that policy is adopted only 24 percent of the time.

 

The affluent are, not surprisingly, better at blocking policies they dislike than achieving policy change they desire. When a policy is strongly opposed by the affluent (less than 25 percent support) but not strongly opposed by the middle-class, that policy is adopted only 4 percent of the time. But when a policy is strongly opposed by the middle-class but not by the affluent, the policy is adopted 40 percent of the time.

[y66]

What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House? Molly E. Reynolds and Margaret Taylor explain at Lawfare.

[barmar]

What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House? Molly E. Reynolds and Margaret Taylor explain at Lawfare.

I'm not sure that a process that gives the House more legal powers would really have an impact on Trump. He and his cohorts routinely dismisses legitimate inquiries and subpoenas. The problem is that Congress can keep demanding things, but they don't really have the power to force someone to show up and talk. Trump can refuse anything, and then it will go to the Courts. If the court finds against him, he appeals to SCOTUS. Even if he keeps losing at each stage, this all takes time, and he's perfectly willing to run out the clock.

 

House v. Trump is a continuous Mexican standoff. And Trump will always find a way to frame the lack of progress by the Democrats as a big win for him, and his base will eat it up.

[Winstonm]

I'm not sure that a process that gives the House more legal powers would really have an impact on Trump. He and his cohorts routinely dismisses legitimate inquiries and subpoenas. The problem is that Congress can keep demanding things, but they don't really have the power to force someone to show up and talk. Trump can refuse anything, and then it will go to the Courts. If the court finds against him, he appeals to SCOTUS. Even if he keeps losing at each stage, this all takes time, and he's perfectly willing to run out the clock.

 

House v. Trump is a continuous Mexican standoff. And Trump will always find a way to frame the lack of progress by the Democrats as a big win for him, and his base will eat it up.

 

The House could use its inherent contempt powers and actually send the sergeant-at-arms to apprehend and jail within the federal building any violator. The question to me is what would the response be if the sergeant-at-arms showed up at the Treasury department to arrest Mnuchin? Would Individual-1 send the Secret Service to intervene?

 

The same hold true for the SCOTUS. What if this president is ruled against but still decides not to comply? The genuine question we have at this inflection point is how far in complicity will the Republican party go?

[johnu]

The same hold true for the SCOTUS. What if this president is ruled against but still decides not to comply? The genuine question we have at this inflection point is how far in complicity will the Republican party go?

 

There doesn't have to be any Republican congressmen to impeach in the House because the Democrats have a majority. There is 1 Republican house member on the record as being for impeachment.

 

There are 53 Republican senators and if all 47 of the Democrats and independents vote to convict, 20 out of the 53 Republican would have to vote to convict and remove Dennison from office. I have no respect for most of those Republican senators but I think if Dennison refuses to comply with a Supreme Court decision, that would be too much for at least 20 of those Republicans. Most of them are self proclaimed law and order candidates, but then again, so are people like Joe Arpaio who has no problem breaking the law.

[johnu]

In yet another display of infantile and out of control behavior, Dennison takes the ball and goes home B-)

 

Trump Walks Out Of Meeting With Top Democrats, Blames Impeachment Talk

 

According to a source familiar with the meeting, Trump walked into the room, did not shake anyone’s hand or sit in his seat, and said talks over infrastructure, trade and farm assistance would have to wait until congressional investigations are done. He then walked out without acknowledging anyone in the room.

I'm sure that convinced Democrats to drop all their investigations into Dennison :lol: It is unconfirmed that Dennison held his breath until his hair turned blue.

 

In the press conference [afterwards], Trump stood behind a sign reading “no collusion, no obstruction” and argued he’s “the most transparent president in history.”

This would have been a lot more effective if Dennison had some MiG jets doing a flyby and some Russian tanks and missile launchers rumbling down Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

Even some Republicans in Congress were not willing to approve of complete gridlock

 

GOP Lawmakers To Trump: We Can Still Work With Democrats

 

“They really want a do-over!” Trump tweeted later Wednesday. “You can’t investigate and legislate simultaneously - it just doesn’t work that way. You can’t go down two tracks at the same time.”

To prove his point, Dennison stood in the same place for 10 minutes while he finished chewing a stick of gum. After he finished chewing his gum, Dennison was able to walk away. :rolleyes:

[PassedOut]

This childish behavior disgraces the office that Trump holds. Most folks who voted for him simply hoping that he'd turn out to be an acceptable president should be able to see that it hasn't turned out that way.

[Winstonm]

It is unconfirmed that Dennison held his breath until his hair turned blue.

 

:

 

He is holding his breath until the Senate turns blue. B-)

[johnu]

Putin out-prepared Trump in key meeting, Rex Tillerson told House panel

 

Former secretary of state Rex Tillerson told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Russian President Vladimir Putin out-prepared President Trump during a key meeting in Germany, putting the U.S. leader at a disadvantage during their first series of tête-à-têtes.

 

“We spent a lot of time in the conversation talking about how Putin seized every opportunity to push what he wanted,” a committee aide said. “There was a discrepancy in preparation, and it created an unequal footing.”

I don't often do this, but I have to defend Dennison. He put in several long days of playing golf at his golf club in Florida and his golf game was very sharp. His foot mashie was very accurate, and he bankrolled enough mulligans to play all week. If Putin wanted to discuss sand traps and water hazards, Dennison was 100% prepared with a Rules of Golf booklet. In addition, Dennison was totally up to speed on the type of material and grade of the carpets in the meeting room. Dennison also knew all about the chandeliers and the lighting in the room, and the fixtures in the bathrooms. How is that not being prepared for a meeting?

 

It was downright unfair of Putin to discuss world and US-Russia matters.

[barmar]

Remember during the campaign when he said he could "act presidential", and then pretended to be stodgy and proper? He hasn't even managed to do that during his term.

[Winstonm]

For anyone who complains that the government is inefficient, remember that some government printer was able to make a sign and post it in the Rose Garden at the WH is under 5 minutes after Individual-1 bailed pretended to bail on Nancy and held an "impromptu?" a staged news conference.

 

Speaking of impromptu, I've seen two or three news reports using that claim. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. :P

[johnu]

In yet another display of infantile and out of control behavior, Dennison takes the ball and goes home B-)

 

Trump Walks Out Of Meeting With Top Democrats, Blames Impeachment Talk

Another hilarious clip of Dennison forcing his staff to say that he was actually very calm, and claiming it was actually Pelosi who was completely unhinged.

 

Trump says 'she's a mess' after Pelosi says Trump family needs to stage 'intervention'

 

Trump went around the room asking Counselor Kellyanne Conway, press secretary Sarah Sanders and other top aides to testify about how calm he was in a White House meeting on Wednesday with Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he left abruptly after just three minutes.

The president, as he's done before, referred to himself "as an extremely stable genius."

Words fail me :rolleyes:

 

Since I'm in a bipartisan mode, I offer this piece of advice to Dennison:

 

Schedule another cabinet meeting where the VP and all the cabinet members can further humiliate themselves by competing among themselves to see who can be the biggest bootlicker and proclaiming what a great man Dennison is and how proud and lucky they are to serve in his administration. Surely that will convince the public that there's nothing wrong with him.

[Chas_P]

Then why is it you seemingly continue to support the "outlaw" Republican party?

 

Actually I don't "support" either major political party. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat. If you want to slap a label on me label me as a Libertarian. I believe in Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. So far I've achieved all three; I've lived for over 81 years, enjoyed liberty for all 81+, and not only pursued happiness but actually captured it. I wish the same for you.

[Winstonm]

I've lived for over 81 years, enjoyed liberty for all 81+, and not only pursued happiness but actually captured it. I wish the same for you.

 

That means that 74 of those years have been due to the benefits of liberal democracy. You're welcome.

[johnu]

There have been many stories of Dennison not having the balls to actually fire somebody in person, preferring to delegate the firing to a subordinate or doing it by tweet or other means that don't require eyeball to eyeball contact.

 

hat time Trump sold the Plaza Hotel at an $83 million loss

 

Late in the summer of 1994, Abraham Wallach, Trump’s original fixer, was determined to save his boss’s favorite property. The Plaza had declared bankruptcy, and its creditors were anxious to sell the hotel to recoup at least some of their original investment. It was a race to the finish. If Citibank and the other lenders found a buyer for the Plaza, Trump would lose the property. But if Trump could identify a buyer first, he might convince that person to let him continue managing the hotel or, perhaps, give him the go-ahead to complete his project to transform the Plaza’s top floors into penthouse apartments. Wallach was resolute that Trump would triumph.

Wallach’s most promising lead was Sun Hung Kai & Co., one of Hong Kong’s largest property investment companies. It was run by the three Kwok brothers, who were among the richest families in all of Asia.

One morning, Wallach arrived to pick up the Kwoks for a day of sightseeing. He nodded to the private security guard who had been hired by the family to stand sentry outside the suite’s entrance, and then knocked on the door. There was no answer, so the security guard also knocked. When there was still no answer, the guard called on his walkie-talkie to another guard stationed inside the rooms. He radioed back to say that the family was stuck inside—the door had jammed. Wallach and the guard tried pushing and pulling the ancient door free from its sticky hinges. It refused to budge. As panic set in, Wallach called down to hotel security. Several men arrived with hatchets, which they used to break down the jammed door, after which the traumatized family rushed out in relief.

After he left the Kwoks, Wallach dejectedly walked the few blocks to Trump Tower to relay the bad news.

 

Trump "was very calm at first. ‘A door jammed? What do you mean a door jammed?’  ” recalled Wallach. Then, “It was as if a tsunami and an earthquake had hit at the same time. There were loud shrieks from the 26th floor. ‘A door jammed? A door jammed?’  ”

 

Trump ran over to the Plaza, “and he started firing people: ‘You’re fired! You’re fired! You’re fired!’ He even fired people who didn’t work at the hotel, who were guests,” Wallach recounted.

[cherdano]

Actually I don't "support" either major political party. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat. If you want to slap a label on me label me as a Libertarian. I believe in Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. So far I've achieved all three; I've lived for over 81 years, enjoyed liberty for all 81+, and not only pursued happiness but actually captured it. I wish the same for you.

That's exactly the impression you make in your forum persona. Someone who is genuinely happy with his life and not at all cranky about anything. I mean, who but a genuinely happy person would be cheering for an administration who fights with all its heart to make life miserable for incoming asylum seekers, including separating toddlers from their parents and letting six migrant children die in custody? Shows what a satisfied life you have!!

ALSO, TRUMP DID NOT THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM IN HIS MEETING WITH PELOSI! I KNOW IT BECAUSE HE SAID SO IN A TWEET!!!

[Winstonm]

Trump tries to steer border wall deal to GOP donor’s firm

 

And if we knew the size of the expected kickback to the Trump Organization, we would then probably know why the president is so insistent about "the big, beautiful wall."

[Winstonm]

 

This "Nancy Pelosi slurred her words" fake tape could easily be the product of the Russian troll farm that engineered the heist of the 2016 election, yet here we have one of the president' lawyers spreading this false message.

How quickly we forget. The whole edited/doctored Nancy Pelosi video thing isn't exactly new. It's ripped from the "Hillary Clinton is sick" handbook of 2016.

 

Giuliani as Goebbels in Springtime for Individual-1?

[Winstonm]

I wonder if the overt nature of the corruption of this administration will ever be enough to turn members of his own party against Individual-1.

[barmar]

I wonder if the overt nature of the corruption of this administration will ever be enough to turn members of his own party against Individual-1.

It's been over 2 years, and little has changed. We're starting to see small cracks (that one GOP Senator last week who broke ranks and said he'd support impeachment), but I think Trump was right when he said he could kill someone in Times Square and he wouldn't lose support. I think all the passes he's gotten just continue to embolden him.