ChrisWeigant.com

Precedent Trump

[ Posted Thursday, January 9th, 2020 – 18:23 UTC ]

Today, I'd like to step back from a day-to-day analysis of Donald Trump's actions in order to look at a slightly bigger picture. Because at this point, it almost seems like we should all start calling him "Precedent Trump," since he is setting so many of them for future presidents to either use or abuse at will. Republicans who now slavishly insist upon supporting anything and everything Trump does -- no matter how outrageous, no matter how disruptive -- should be warned that future presidents (Democratic ones most definitely included) may one day point to current GOP behavior while insisting that they have exactly the same rights that Trump has claimed for himself. Because this is always the ultimate test of supporting any expansion of presidential powers: would you support a president of the other party doing such a thing? Again, Republicans would do well to consider this in the Trump era, because it's my guess that some of these precedents are going to come back to bite them later on. And it'll be pretty tough for them to argue against these precedents after so wholeheartedly supporting them now.

When I sat down to write this, I made a quick list of the possibly-dangerous precedents Trump has now set, or is in the process of setting. Without even having to think too hard, I came up with a baker's dozen, right off the top of my head. This should not be seen as a definitive list, but merely the most obvious and egregious. There are likely another dozen or so I didn't even consider, in other words. So in no real order, let's take a look at all of them, keeping in mind that Democratic presidents in the future may choose to follow Trump's path on any of them.

 

Making money off the presidency

All previous presidents in modern times have turned over their business interests -- whatever they may be -- to a blind trust. This was meant to guarantee that presidents wouldn't be influenced in decision-making by whether or not they'd profit personally from whatever action they took. Trump sneered at the concept and kept his businesses mostly intact. Congress has not passed any law to change this, so any future president could do exactly the same thing.

 

Constant lying

This is pretty self-explanatory. Trump lies like a rug. All the time. About stupid stuff that is pathetically easy to disprove. It is, in a word, pathological. However, when Trump lies he then forces official arms of the federal government to attempt to twist reality to fit his warped viewpoint, as was made painfully evident during "Sharpiegate." Few Republicans balked at such misuse of the government to assuage Trump's idiotic lies.

 

Diplomacy by tweet

Again, pretty self-explanatory. Trump treats Twitter as his chosen official channel to communicate not only with the American public, but also (now) with Congress and with the rest of the world. Will Republicans in future be on board with a Democrat doing the same thing (with better grammar and spelling, one assumes)?

 

Senate confirmation fast track

This isn't just Trump, it's largely due to Mitch McConnell. Trump loves to brag about how many federal judges he's gotten confirmed, and for once he's actually right -- he is setting a record pace in the Senate. But this was due not to Trump doing anything differently, but to recent Senate rule changes, and the next time Democrats hold both the Senate and the White House, we should expect this confirmation fast track to be repeated for liberal judges. What will Republicans say then?

 

Obstruction of justice

By proclaiming the Mueller Report "totally exonerated" Trump, Republicans have bought into allowing any of the obstruction of justice exposed by it to be repeated by future Democratic presidents. From now on, whenever a Democrat decides to follow Trump's footsteps, they'll have the Mueller Report to point to as proof that the GOP considers such behavior allowable.

 

Investigating rivals

This used to be the purview of banana republics, but Trump has changed all of that. If a Democratic president decides to instruct the Justice Department to launch an investigation of a Republican rival, the GOP won't have a leg left to stand on to complain about it. According to them (now), this is entirely allowable behavior, so they'll have no grounds to complain about it in the future when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Total stonewall

One can almost picture the spirit of Richard Nixon gasping with astonishment over the total stonewall that Trump has built between his White House and Congress. Nixon did provide many documents and witnesses during Watergate, while fighting some of it in the courts. Trump has taken this stance to the limit, by refusing to even respond to any demands for documents or witnesses. Republicans, for the most part, have gone along with this without complaint. So when a Democratic president decides to ignore congressional subpoenas at will, there will be a precedent for them to point to which Republicans will be hard-pressed to brush off.

 

Blanket immunity

In a similar vein, Trump has insisted that not only all his current staff but also former staff and even people who have never officially worked for him can claim "blanket immunity" from testifying before Congress. He's taken the concept of "executive privilege" to the absolute extreme by doing so. Again, precious few Republicans have complained about these sweeping claims. Which may bite them in the hindquarters later, when a Democrat decides to do exactly the same thing.

 

Foreign election interference

Again, pretty obvious. Trump trying to get a foreign government to dig up dirt -- or even just announce they were digging up dirt -- on a political rival was the main reason he was impeached. Republicans have insisted that Trump did nothing wrong by doing so. This means that any future president will be able to ask any foreign government for exactly the same thing, and Republicans will be flaming hypocrites if they balk at such actions.

 

Political quid pro quos

Also from the Ukraine scandal, if a future Democratic president ever uses foreign aid or military aid or any other "thing of value" to pressure any foreign government for purely political help, Republicans have already put their seal of approval on such a scheme.

 

Assassination as foreign policy

These final three are more recent in nature. Trump apparently decided to assassinate a high-ranking military official of another country without any solid evidence to prove any sort of justification for doing so. He did it -- as he does so many things -- purely on a whim. This overturns decades of official U.S. policy, but the official ban on assassination was always just a presidential directive, meaning any sitting president could overturn it with the stroke of a pen. Nobody has delved into whether Trump has now officially overturned the ban on assassinations or not, but eventually someone is going to have to ask this important question. Is it now allowable for America to target foreign leaders -- even of countries we are not current at war with -- for assassination, at the sole discretion of the president? Because that was the precedent just set by Trump.

 

No congressional notifications

This has been deteriorating for a number of months now, and was on display again this week. Trump has decided that he can do whatever he wants with the military without having to inform the "Gang of Eight" -- the congressional leaders who are supposed to be informed before such actions are taken. Four Democrats and four Republicans from the House and Senate are supposed to be briefed, but Trump has apparently decided that this isn't necessary any more. So of course Republicans will be just fine with a Democratic president acting without informing them, right?

 

Provoking war with no congressional input

This one can't be laid entirely at the feet of Trump, because it has been building for many decades. Congress hasn't declared an official war since World War II. Everything that has followed -- starting with Korea and Vietnam and stretching through the events of this week -- has not been an official war, because Congress didn't act. This is decidedly not what the Founding Fathers intended should happen. They would be aghast at the abdication of the solemn duties of Congress over the past half-century, in fact. But as Congress after Congress (led by both parties) ceded the warmaking power to president after president (of both parties), this erosion continues apace. We're now at the point where the Trump administration just briefed Congress that (answering a hypothetical) Trump could order the assassination of the leader of Iran without any congressional input whatsoever, and only two Republican senators even grumbled about it publicly. Again, this didn't start with Trump but as with many of the other items on this list, Trump has taken it to a new extreme.

 

That's the list I came up with after spending only about 30 seconds thinking about the subject. There are likely many more items which could easily be added to the list, both great and small.

Republicans, in their adoration of their Dear Leader Trump, have had to swallow some of their long-held major ideological positions on the way the government is supposed to work -- especially when it comes to the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. These were longstanding objections on principles that used to be deeply held in the Republican Party. All such objections have been obliterated by the Trump whirlwind. Out of fear of Trump's ire, Republicans have gone along with things they never would have previously agreed to. But one has to wonder if they realize how many precedents they are setting as a result, and whether they ever consider how they'll view such things when the other party is the one calling the shots from the Oval Office.

The only thing guaranteed in politics is that things change. The pendulum swings back and forth between the parties. The "Ins" of today will be the "Outs" of tomorrow, and vice-versa. One day there will be a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Senate majority leader. When that happens, they'll helpfully point to what Republicans are doing and supporting now, because once such precedents are set they're almost impossible to later deny.

The big question Republicans are not asking themselves right now is what they'll do when that day comes. To put this question in the most fear-inspiring way possible (to Republicans, of course), what they should be asking now is not whether they're OK with letting President Trump get away with all this stuff, but whether they'll be just as peachy when, say, a President Ocasio Cortez does exactly the same thing to them in the future.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

51 Comments on “Precedent Trump”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Are you saying that Democratic presidents in the future are likely to repeat some or all of these Trump precedents?

    Is there really that high a level of equivalency between Democrats and Republicans?

    I would forcefully argue not and probably will, tomorrow ...

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't see why it will be difficult for Republicans to argue against a Democratic president doing any thing Trump does.

    For as long as I have been following politics Republicans have been arguing against something they previously supported or a Democratic president doing something they supported a Republican president doing.

    Democrats have done the same.

    I don't see even Trump changing those precedents.

    One thing Democrats already do that Trump and Republicans do is take big money to finance their campaigns and legislate to benefit the big money interests.

    It is in fact the main reason that Trump can do what he is doing and that a future Democratic president may choose to do and be able to do with Democrats suddenly finding those things okay any of the things you listed above.

    Maybe you should take a step back from the day-to-day analysis of Trump as well as anything to do with the two party battle for control in 2020 and look at the bigger picture of all the opportunities available to citizens as the recurring two party battle for control has not been productive (See- President Trump getting elected in 2016 and still possibly being re-elected in 2020).

    It's time to Get Real and become part of the solution by exposing the reality of the big money two party deception and providing information on what can be done about it.

    An article about my question from the Biden-Bernie arrticle's comments for Bernie or Warren in the upcoming debate would make better premise for an article than your defective Republicans might argue against a Democratic president doing what a Republican president has done premise for this article.

    And it would do a hell of a lot more good.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops.

    That comment was actually from yesterday's article.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Missing from Chris' litany of "precedential" sins is the most sinful one of all - winning an election that everybody guaranteed the Dems couldn't possibly lose. That would be 'Sinnus Maximus' in Latin.

    So yeah, by extension that WOULD give future Dem "Precedential" candidates license to commit that same sin (provided they're capable of pulling it off).

  5. [5] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I am surprised to see you putting so much stock in the concepts of 'shame', 'fear of seeming hypocritical', and 'having to acknowledge precedents' having some effect on the Republican Party's positions and rhetoric.

    As far as I can see, if a Democratic administration were to pull any of Trump's BS in the next decade or so (which I very much hope it wouldn't by the way - or else that makes the Dems into equally contemptible hypocrites), the Repubs will let go with both barrels of their propaganda cannons - aimed entirely at their own base, which is the only audience they care about. A Democratic President can do no right, and a Republican president can do no wrong, is the only message this base needs to hear, and consistency, precedent, and even the rule of law have no place in that equation.

    Everything you've written is true, as far as I'm concerned. But none of it matters, as far as I can see, based on my exposure to American politics over the past, oh, thirty to fifty years. I only pray that future Democratic (and future Republican, too, though good luck with that) presidents will NOT decide that criminality, corruption, assassination, foreign collusion, one man wars, etc. are just fine now, because President Trump did it. Yes, even if, were he or she to do those things, the Republicans would *in theory* have no ethical basis for complaint or criticism.

  6. [6] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Need laws that require all federal candidates to pass the same background check we require all White House employees to be able to pass in order to even get on a ballot!

    We need a law that instructs the DOJ to treat the POTUS as it would any citizen when there is evidence that warrants an indictment for a felony. We do not have a king — laws must matter.

    Trump chose not to divest from his company, at his own peril. I have to wonder how many people are going to be comfortable renting office space, visiting a resort, leasing an apartment, or staying in a hotel that is likely a target for terrorists? It’ll take one attack on something with the “Trump” name attached to it’s signage and that will be the end of his brand!

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    From previous commentary..

    Russ,

    Except for me stating —

    You didn't state your opposition to CW's opinion AT THE TIME..

    You see, this is exactly why it's impossible to take you seriously..

    Yer so full of shit, yer eyes are brown..

    And I do not feel the need to express every time I disagree with someone here.

    Except you DO when it's President Trump or myself or any other Republican..

    You see the point??

    Doubtful..

    Funny, you never mentioned that opposition on 10/7/19.

    Actually, I did.. On several occasions..

    You simply ignore it because it doesn't fit your hate/bigoted agenda..

    . I say this not based on you saying those words in any of your posts...because you never said those words!

    Actually, I did.. Several times.

    I would go back over that time and find the comments where I opposed President Trump..

    But knowing that it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to admit yer wrong, what would be the point???

    But the point is, you can say that you disagreed with Trump regarding the Kurds now, but you never said it before now!

    Actually I did.. Several times..

    You claim I didn't?? Prove it.. With facts..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    — laws must matter.

    Except when it comes to illegal immigrant criminals and other laws that interfere with your Democrat Party agenda..

    :eyeroll:

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Are you saying that Democratic presidents in the future are likely to repeat some or all of these Trump precedents?

    Why do you sound so shocked??

    Many of the "precedents" that CW is going on about were actually made by Obama..

    President Trump is simply following Obama's precedent..

    But, of course, ya'all are perfectly OK with the guy with the -D after his name setting precedents...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Making money off the presidency

    Oh ppuuuuullleeeeeessssseeeeee

    How much did the Clintons make off Bubba's presidency..

    How much did Odumbo make of HIS presidency???

    Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars..

    Funny how when a guy with a -D after his name makes money off of his presidency, you are strangely silent..

    Hmmmmmm....

    As I mentioned to Liz above, many of the items you complain about were actually precedents set by Obama and President Trump is simply following Obama's precedent..

    However, credit where credit is due..

    Excellent word play on the title... :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Way back, when this faux impeachment coup was voted on in the House and Pelosi refused to send the flawed baseless articles of impeachment to the Senate, I commented on how the GOP should respond.. I had said that the Senate should change Senate rules to allow the Senate to process the impeachment even without the House actually sending the articles over...

    McConnell backs measure to change Senate rules, dismiss impeachment without articles
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477587-mcconnell-backs-measure-to-change-senate-rules-dismiss-impeachment-without

    In Weigantia of days gone past, I would have been complimented for my prescience... :D

    Since I know none will be forthcoming, I'll simply have to resort to gloating.. :D

    Who could have ***POSSIBLY*** predicted that the Senate would change their rules to allow the Senate to tell House Democrats to take their articles and shove them up their collective asses...

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is backing a resolution to change the Senate’s rules to allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over.

    Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Thursday that McConnell has signed on as a co-sponsor to the resolution, which he introduced earlier this week.

    Spokesmen for McConnell didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about his support.

    Changing the rules would either require a two-thirds vote or for Republicans to deploy the "nuclear" option.

    The resolution would give the House 25 days to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate. After that, a senator could offer a motion to dismiss "with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles" with a simple majority vote, according to Hawley's proposal.

    McConnell has repeatedly lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for delaying sending over the two articles of impeachment.

    "This is what they have done: They have initiated one of the most grave and most unsettling processes in our Constitution and then refused to allow a resolution," he said on Thursday.

    ‘The Speaker began something that she herself predicted would be 'so divisive to the country' ... and now she is unilaterally saying it cannot move forward towards a resolution," he added.

    Pelosi royally frak'ed up... :D

    In addition to being totally exonerated by the US Senate, Pelosi has give President Trump *ANOTHER* win by her caving and sending the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate..

    I predict Pelosi will cave within a week... :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I predict Pelosi will cave within a week... :D

    Pelosi to 'soon' send impeachment articles for Senate trialAP

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she will “soon? transmit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, signaling a potential thaw in the standoff with Senate Republicans as she warned against rushing to an acquittal without a fair trial.

    Pelosi, D-Calif., faces mounting pressure from Republicans and some Democrats to quit delaying the president’s trial in the Senate, three weeks after the House Democrats impeached Trump on charges of abuse and obstruction. Republicans say Democrats are embarrassed by their vote.
    https://apnews.com/d3b2714efc1f153d3192b138d3c33521

    WOW.. I knew I was good, but I didn't realize I was THAT good.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Constant lying

    Actually, this is not factually accurate..

    It only appears so because ya'all have changed the definition of what constitutes a lie..

    Basically, ya'all define "lie" as anything President Trump says.. :eyeroll:

    Total stonewall

    You mean, like Obama did with Fast/Furious???

    As I said, practically every "precedent" you name was actually established by Obama...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    No congressional notifications

    Trump, at Ohio rally, says Democrats would have leaked Soleimani attack plans

    Trump blasts Democrats during a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio for demanding advanced knowledge of the U.S. strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

    Flush with campaign cash and facing down a possible Senate impeachment trial, President Trump headlined his first major rally of the election year Thursday in Ohio -- and almost immediately, the president capitalized on his order to take out Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani after the military leader was said to have orchestrated an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

    In unequivocal terms, Trump slammed House Democrats' nonbinding War Powers Resolution, which passed earlier in the day in a rebuke to the Soleimani strike. Trump went on to suggest that Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and "Liddle' pencil-neck" House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., would have tipped off the media about the operation had they known about it.

    "They're saying, 'You should get permission from Congress, you should come in and tell us what you want to do -- you should come in and tell us, so that we can call up the fake news that's back there, and we can leak it,'" Trump said. "Lot of corruption back there."

    The president added that it would have been impractical to have alerted Congress, given the "split-second" nature of the decision to kill Soleimani.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-toledo-ohio-rally-iran-impeachment

    Of course President Trump didn't notify Congress of the coming Sillyman assassination..

    President Trump knew that Democrats in Congress would leak it, hoping to protect Obama's BFF Sillyman..

    Democrats have PROVEN beyond any doubt that they simply cannot be trusted with classified intel..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

    Looks like NO IMPEACHMENT is moving back up.. :D

    Democrats have really lost big time on this entire debacle...

    Of course no one here (NEN) would ever concede that fact..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now a word from RCP... :D

    Pelosi's Embarrassing Impeachment Blunder

    America is the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Both have drawn firm lines in the sand. Someone's got to give," one reporter recently declared.

    There is, of course, nothing to "give." Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial; no constitutional right or political leverage. Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end, one way or another, with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/10/pelosis_embarrassing_impeachment_blunder_142115.html

    Again, I have to ask..

    What part of THE GOP HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS is unclear to anyone??

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    She will send them over when she believes it's no longer in her interest to hold off. Which means that until now she thought it was in her interest to hold off. Who knows what inside baseball reasons there might be?

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Agree with jm, the shame of hypocrisy is largely academic. Though there was some gop push back when Donald tried to host the g20 at his own resort.

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Whoops i meant 2020 g7. Good morning.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    She will send them over when she believes it's no longer in her interest to hold off.

    That's my point.. It has NEVER been in her interests (or House Democrat's interests) to not send the articles..

    It was a HUGE political miscalculation.. As the facts CLEARLY show..

    She is giving President Trump *ANOTHER* win in addition to total exoneration..

    Which means that until now she thought it was in her interest to hold off.

    "(S)he chose.... Poorly."
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    It's very telling that her final act as speaker will be a total and complete humiliation..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who knows what inside baseball reasons there might be?

    I could use the same reasoning when ya'all bitch and moan about President Trump's actions..

    Would you accept it?? :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment Standoff May Be Near End With Pelosi Allies Stumped

    (Bloomberg) -- Lawmakers expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will soon end her delay of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial without any notable concessions from Senate Republicans, leaving her allies stumped about her strategy in the three-week standoff.

    Senior Democrats in the House insisted publicly that the speaker has given them no hints on timing for sending the two articles of impeachment over to the Republican-controlled Senate, the step that would trigger an immediate opening of the historic impeachment trial.

    Amid speculation about her rationale and expressions of exasperation from Democrats in the House and Senate -- delivered almost exclusively on condition of anonymity -- Pelosi offered only cryptic clues.

    “I’m not holding them indefinitely. I’ll send them when I’m ready, and that probably will be soon,” Pelosi said Thursday.

    Some lawmakers said they took that to mean sometime in the coming days the House impeachment managers will be named and the articles of impeachment formally transmitted to the Senate.

    Pelosi’s ability to influence the rules for the impeachment trial has dwindled as her standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has dragged on.
    https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-allies-stumped-impeachment-standoff-090000314.html

    Like I said... Pelosi is taking a HUGE credibility hit..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    There has been ONE tangible benefit of Pelosi's bonehead play..

    At least, a benefit for President Trump and the GOP..

    Pelosi's move has all but guaranteed that Senate Democrats running for POTUS will be pulled off the campaign trail to sit in the Senate and process this faux impeachment coup..

    Good call, Nancy.. You just scrooed over your Party's Presidential candidates.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Good morning.

    Good morning! :D

    And what a bright and cheery morning it is, eh? :D

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-6

    Given the degree of polarization between Democrats and Republicans I don't see much chance of passing the completely necessary and reasonable reforms you propose.

    The only hope against permanent Trumpism (government by Supreme Leader directives) is thru Supreme Court rulings based on existing law. Assuming court rulings can be enforced. Scary times ahead.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only hope against permanent Trumpism (government by Supreme Leader directives) is thru Supreme Court rulings based on existing law. Assuming court rulings can be enforced. Scary times ahead.

    Yea.. Ya'all have been predicting that every since Trump was elected..

    Funny how it's **NEVER** come to fruition..

    On the other hand, ya can make the argument that times are indeed scary.. For Trump/America haters and the Democrat Party..

    That simply means that things are GREAT for this country and patriotic Americans.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dow breaches 29,000 for the first time as investors shake off weak December jobs report
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/dow-futures-on-the-back-of-easing-tensions-in-the-middle-east.html

    As I said afore, this is a major problem ya'all have..

    Ya'all were utterly and completely wrong about President Trump, with ALL ya'all's predictions...

    Yet ya'all can't admit it..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    By proclaiming the Mueller Report "totally exonerated" Trump, Republicans have bought into allowing any of the obstruction of justice exposed by it to be repeated by future Democratic presidents. From now on, whenever a Democrat decides to follow Trump's footsteps, they'll have the Mueller Report to point to as proof that the GOP considers such behavior allowable.

    Once again, it was Obama and the Democrats who set this precedent..

    President Trump is simply following the set precedent..

    If only someone had, at the time, said that Democrats will be singing a different tune on these actions when the GOP is in control..

    Wait a tic..

    Someone DID say that...

    "IT WAS MEEE!!!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

    Ya'all were warned.. Ya'all chose to let Party slavery take precedent over what was morally and ethically acceptable...

    Ya'all have no moral or ethical foundation to complain about President Trump...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    AOC riles Dems by refusing to pay party dues, bankrolling colleagues' opponents
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-riles-dems-by-refusing-to-pay-party-dues-bankrolling-her-colleagues-opponents

    Deadbeat Democrats..

    :eyeroll:

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (6), Stig (26)-

    Stig is sort of right when he points out any proposed reform legislation will not be passed, just wrong about why.

    Polarization has nothing to do with it. It is in fact what the Republicans and Democrats have in common that prevents any legislation from being passed- they both work for the big money interests.

    Trumpism is just one symptom of big money controlling our political system and just eliminating Trumpism without purging big money from our political system will not solve all the problems or eliminate the cause of Trumpism and other problems.

    The Supreme Court will not be a knight in shining riding to the rescue.

    Citizens have to take on the responsibility of repairing our political system by refusing to vote for big money candidates and casting write in votes to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates.

    THAT is our only hope.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    “In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or to the Constitution. No one is above the law, not even the President.”
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Except for illegal immigrant criminals who violate our laws with impunity..

    By their actions, Democrats have stated unequivocally that Crimmigrants are above the law..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    PELOSI CAVES!!!!!

    Speaker Pelosi says House will move to transmit impeachment articles for Trump trial next week

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday that she will take steps next week to send impeachment articles to the Senate, after delaying the process since last month in a bid to extract favorable terms for a trial.

    “I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further,” Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in a letter to colleagues.

    PRESSURE MOUNTS ON PELOSI TO TRANSMIT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AS DEMOCRATS LOSE PATIENCE

    The decision to release the articles came as fellow Democrats in recent days had started to voice frustration and impatience with the speaker's approach. They stressed the urgency with which impeachment was treated at the end of 2019 and questioned why the House would then delay a trial by using articles as leverage.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-articles-of-impeachment-will-be-sent-to-senate-to-allow-trump-trial-to-begin-next-week

    Once again.. I nailed it.. :D

    No wonder things are deathly quiet around here..

    Ya'all (NEN) can't hang... :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    As with this faux impeachment coup itself, this bonehead move on Pelosi's part had only **ONE** outcome..

    With Pelosi humiliated and President Trump crowing over the vanquished and bitch slap Pelosi..

    It's almost as if Pelosi WANTED to be embarrassed and humiliated...

    And she is the MOST IMPRESSIVE Democrat of the week!???

    WOW... :D

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Chris

    Re "Foreign election interference".

    I find it exceedingly fascinating,and perhaps telling, that when you raise that in the litany of Trumpian sins, you only have in mind Trump's solicitation of political dirt that might influence an American election.

    Surely everybody is aware that WE have a very LONG historey of interfering in that other kind of "foreign election" meaning their elections.

    I feel certain that nobody, Dem or Rep, would ever ask whether that kind of "foreign election interference" is legal!!!

    So what is it, are we just stupid, or could it be we're both stupid AND hypocritical??

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Democrats LOVE election interference... Except when the GOP does it...

    Obama sycophants traveled to Israel to try and help swing Israel's election away from Netanyahu...

    It's a tribute to Obama's incompetence that the attempt failed.. Impressively failed..

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump’s moment of clarity at his rally last night:

    “You know it’s interesting, as I’m saying this stuff — you know, ‘They want crime, they want chaos’ — I’m saying all this stuff, and then I say, ‘Gee, now I sort of understand why they hate me for it,’ ” Trump said.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s moment of clarity at his rally last night:

    Straight from the WaPoop Propaganda center.. :D

    No wonder you didn't want to attribute it.. :D

    Out of context BS.. That's the name of yer game..

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    Surely everybody is aware that WE have a very LONG historey of interfering in that other kind of "foreign election" meaning their elections.

    I feel certain that nobody, Dem or Rep, would ever ask whether that kind of "foreign election interference" is legal!!!

    So what is your point? We have done this to other countries in the past — look no further than present day Iran and Iraq to see how well that worked out. Was it right when we did it to them? No! We are not able to change what occurred in the past...we can only look forward and try to make amends where we can — and make the best of the bad situation we caused where we cannot!

    You are overlooking the one key factor between our country’s interference in other people’s elections and Trump inviting other countries to interfere in ours... What was done to other countries was done on behalf of our national security; Trump’s actions only compromise our national security and only benefit him and the foreign countries that provide him aid. To make it clear in case you missed the real message here...Trump betrayed our nation, his oath, and our Constitution! His name will be synonymous with “traitor” throughout history.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Republicans who now slavishly insist upon supporting anything and everything Trump does -- no matter how outrageous, no matter how disruptive -- should be warned that future presidents (Democratic ones most definitely included) may one day point to current GOP behavior while insisting that they have exactly the same rights that Trump has claimed for himself. Because this is always the ultimate test of supporting any expansion of presidential powers: would you support a president of the other party doing such a thing? Again, Republicans would do well to consider this in the Trump era, because it's my guess that some of these precedents are going to come back to bite them later on. And it'll be pretty tough for them to argue against these precedents after so wholeheartedly supporting them now.

    Allow me to travel back in time 4-6 years and make a few minor changes..

    Democrats who now slavishly insist upon supporting anything and everything Obama does -- no matter how outrageous, no matter how disruptive -- should be warned that future presidents (Republican ones most definitely included) may one day point to current DEM behavior while insisting that they have exactly the same rights that Obama has claimed for himself. Because this is always the ultimate test of supporting any expansion of presidential powers: would you support a president of the other party doing such a thing? Again, Democrats would do well to consider this in the Obama era, because it's my guess that some of these precedents are going to come back to bite them later on. And it'll be pretty tough for them to argue against these precedents after so wholeheartedly supporting them now.

    See how well that works??

    I said much the same thing when Barack I HAVE A PEN AND A PHONE Obama was setting many of the precedents you are complaining about right now..

    Funny how no one here minded that a bit..

    Ya'all only mind it when it's a GOP'er who is wielding the power..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what is your point?

    CRS's point is blatantly obvious..

    If ya'all are so against election interference, why didn't you complain about it when Democrats were the one's interfering???

    The answer is equally obvious..

    You don't really mind election interference whatsoever..

    You just use it as a shiny new bludgeon to beat President Trump over the head with..

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump betrayed our nation, his oath, and our Constitution! His name will be synonymous with “traitor” throughout history.

    Yea.. That's been your claim since even before President Trump took office.. Which is indicative of the validity of the claim..

    Too bad you don't have any facts whatsoever to support the claim..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Chicken Littles got everything wrong on Trump and Iran: Goodwin

    If you went to bed early Tuesday, you were surprised to wake up Wednesday and learn that World War III has been delayed. No doubt you were also shocked that Iran blinked, oil prices were tumbling and the stock market was soaring.

    Once again, the Chicken Little chorus got everything all wrong. The sky isn’t falling and Donald Trump pulled off a huge victory. Oh, and he’s still president.

    Iran’s decision to pretend it was retaliating for the death of Qassem Soleimani by lobbing ineffective missiles is terrific news for America and freedom-loving people everywhere. So was Trump’s Wednesday offer of negotiations, which he wrapped in even tougher economic sanctions and warnings against any new attacks on Americans.
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/08/the-chicken-littles-got-everything-wrong-on-trump-and-iran/

    Again, I have to ask..

    Do ya'all ***EVER*** get tired of being wrong???

    Cuz I can tell you that I ***NEVER*** get tired of calling things dead on ballz accurate.. :D

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig

    While Congress may not act to get the background checks of candidates running for Congress passed into law, that does not mean that the state’s cannot! Members of Congress represent the state’s in which they live... if we can’t get Congress to do what is best for our nation, then we will convince to states to clean up their mess.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    While Congress may not act to get the background checks of candidates running for Congress passed into law, that does not mean that the state’s cannot! Members of Congress represent the state’s in which they live... if we can’t get Congress to do what is best for our nation, then we will convince to states to clean up their mess.

    OK.. Fine.. Let's do a background investigation on Joe Biden..

    Starting with his extortion of Ukrainian leadership to fade the heat from his son..

    What?? You don't really want background checks??

    Smart boy...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House considering dramatic expansion of travel ban

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is considering dramatically expanding its much-litigated travel ban to additional countries amid a renewed election-year focus on immigration by President Donald Trump, according to six people familiar with the deliberations.

    A document outlining the plans — timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trump’s January 2017 executive order — has been circulating the White House. But the countries that would be affected if it moves forward are blacked out, according to two of the people, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the measure has yet to be finalized.
    https://apnews.com/753968e412fab06e6fb8180e7ac98d47

    Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!! :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House considering dramatic expansion of travel ban

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is considering dramatically expanding its much-litigated travel ban to additional countries amid a renewed election-year focus on immigration by President Donald Trump, according to six people familiar with the deliberations.

    A document outlining the plans — timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trump’s January 2017 executive order — has been circulating the White House. But the countries that would be affected if it moves forward are blacked out, according to two of the people, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the measure has yet to be finalized.
    https://apnews.com/753968e412fab06e6fb8180e7ac98d47

    Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!! :D

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think we got it the first time.

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Joe Biden would have no problem passing the background check...Trump would never have been on a ballot if he would have been required to submit to one. Hell, Jared couldn’t pass one and would never have been given security clearance if Trump hadn’t ordered it through. Thank God he did, too, or we would not have the peace in the Middle East that we enjoy today without Jared!

    Ohhhh.. is the thought of having background checks run on you bringing up some sad memories? Like how police officers can’t have a record like yours and still be in law enforcement?

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump’s moment of clarity at his rally last night:

    Straight from the WaPoop Propaganda center.. :D

    Straight from the transcript of Trump’s rambling speech from last night’s rally. Those were his words, if you are able to take something that direct and simple out of context, that is on you!

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Context is so very important - there can be no understanding without it.

Comments for this article are closed.