Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

This.

Actually, I don't believe SCOTUS purely makes Constitutional judgements, they are able to rule on application of federal laws in general. However, since any State-level cases which make it to SCOTUS are usually based on Constitutional law, the cases tend to be disproportionately Constitutional-facing.

That said, Citizens United was ruled on Constitutional grounds, it would be an extremely drastic law (such as disincorporation, which is for practical purposes all but impossible) to get around it.

The Citizens United ruling was so complex, I'm not sure I even understand it.

Igotadose

Hilarious. NY Times publishes a story about US Cyberattacks on Russia. Trump calls them traitors on Twitter. Times follows up with the details, how the story was vetted with the NSC, and, the best part, how the NSC was not fully briefing Trump on the details because they were worried he'd compromise the intelligence. The NSC not trusting the POTUS. Just another day in Trumpworld.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-new-york-times-russia-treason_n_5d05db44e4b0dc17ef0b13a5

Stop moaning ffs

That chimes well with the Pentagon not briefing him cos they think he’s reactionary when he does listen but mostly doesn’t listen. They don’t trust him either. Can’t imagine why.

pixelburp

The sitting US president is considered a security risk by the NSC, and once AGAIN calls an outlet of the media the "enemy of the people" (and being traitors). This isn't normal behaviour and it bares repeating that those that might criticise it are branded the hysterical ones.

Dangerous, irresponsible language from the head of a nominal democracy, language that arguably already stoked those bomb hoaxes. How nobody has been killed yet is beyond me, but it's certainly normalising the hatred and "other"ing of the 4th estate that can only lead to more fracturing. Ah, remember this country removed the Fairness Doctrine. It choose this fate.

I can see why those who support the man point at big numbers and economic waffle cos the man's behaviour as a head of state and bulwark of democracy, is reprehensible.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

The Citizens United ruling was so complex, I'm not sure I even understand it.

One of the most egregious cases of judicial activism I've ever read about. Such a naked attempt to overturn decades of generally well founded law, in order to give those poor, suffering corporations a break.

amandstu

Igotadose wrote: »

Hilarious. NY Times publishes a story about US Cyberattacks on Russia. Trump calls them traitors on Twitter. Times follows up with the details, how the story was vetted with the NSC, and, the best part, how the NSC was not fully briefing Trump on the details because they were worried he'd compromise the intelligence. The NSC not trusting the POTUS. Just another day in Trumpworld.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-new-york-times-russia-treason_n_5d05db44e4b0dc17ef0b13a5

Does the NSC have real independence from the President?

Can he just fire its officers at a whim? Would that trigger the GOP to back impeachment (it is only them preventing that surely)?

Could the process be even quicker if he made moves against the NSC?

Would the NSC still be able to face him down even if he won reelection?

Stop moaning ffs

Whatever happened to the new President being taken into a dark smoky room and shown the Kennedy assassination from an angle never seen before? (Bill hicks) Trump doesn’t seem to have turned up to that meeting.
You would not want to cross the NSA/CIA or FBI. Even the Pentagon given up bothering with him.
He’s crossed all of them. And in print today we have the NSA saying they don’t trust him and he’s a liability.

To go after NYT on twitter speaks that he’s terrified of Putin reacting and has to be seen to at least try placate his true master

amandstu

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

To go after NYT on twitter speaks that he’s terrified of Putin reacting and has to be seen to at least try placate his true master

I got that sense too ,but it is hard to understand why he acts like he does.
I trust the FBI and the Intelligence Community have a handle on it even if their hands are tied for now.

Stop moaning ffs

amandstu wrote: »

I got that sense too ,but it is hard to understand why he acts like he does.
I trust the FBI and the Intelligence Community have a handle on it even if their hands are tied for now.

He’ll happily mock or attack any world leader or mayor or journalist on twitter.
Never Putin though.
You’d wonder why.

I hope they release the pee tape in the 2020 campaign when they realise he’s of no longer use to them. There’s far more in that video then we’ve even guessed if rumours are to be believed. Underage girls and him.

Itssoeasy

I mean it does show how bad he is when the people tasked with keeping the USA safe have said they don't trust the person in charge of the country. I mean has that ever been said about a US president ever ?

duploelabs

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I mean it does show how bad he is when the people tasked with keeping the USA safe have said they don't trust the person in charge of the country. I mean has that ever been said about a US president ever ?

Possibly at the latter Reagan years when he's suffering from dementia, but that's a different kettle of fish

Itssoeasy

duploelabs wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I mean it does show how bad he is when the people tasked with keeping the USA safe have said they don't trust the person in charge of the country. I mean has that ever been said about a US president ever ?

Possibly at the latter Reagan years when he's suffering from dementia, but that's a different kettle of fish

Well was he actually suffering from the early stages of dementia in 1988 ? I know he announced he had the disease in 1994 but I think people have said he was as sharp as ever as far as they could see. I mean he did a Larry king interview after he left office and from watching it I didn't see someone suffering from dementia.

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote: »

One of the most egregious cases of judicial activism I've ever read about. Such a naked attempt to overturn decades of generally well founded law, in order to give those poor, suffering corporations a break.

Like Brian, I'm not sure I understand the ruling either. But there are two points.
Firstly, it has long been the position of the Supreme Court that the fact that a law has been in place for decades does not bootstrap it to the level of constitutionality.

Secondly, whether or not something is good for election campaigning (the primary complaint, which may or may not have merit, I guess, depending on if you are a union or a business) is also not grounds for a legal decision. Four judges obviously thought there was legal grounds to vote the other way, but the five judges of the majority were not alone: The list of amicus briefs in favour of the appellant varies from the ACLU and First Amendment Rights organisations through to the Committee for the Freedom of the Press. Opinions of first amendment professors after the fact also include a number in favour of the opinion. Some, like the ACLU brief, https://transition.fec.gov/law/litigation/citizens_united_sc_08_ca1st_supp_brief_amici.pdf, are premised primarily on legalese, standards of scrutiny, and so on. Others, like the Broadcasters' Assocsiations briefs, http://www.cuvfec.com/documents/case-08-205/Supplemental_Amicus_Brief_of_California_Broadcasters_Association.pdf , are based more on principle: Media organisations are corporations, and if the law does not protect free speech to corporations, where does it leave the media?

It is entirely possible that Citizens United is terrible for campaign finance regulation. Four judges found that there was argument to uphold it. There are, however, obviously very competent arguments not invented by the five-judge majority that the case was correctly decided (in result, if not necessarily mechanism, I have not delved that deeply), not relating to campaign finance. Is the freedom of the press not more important than campaign finance law?

AbusesToilets

Manic Moran wrote: »

Like Brian, I'm not sure I understand the ruling either. But there are two points.
Firstly, it has long been the position of the Supreme Court that the fact that a law has been in place for decades does not bootstrap it to the level of constitutionality.

Secondly, whether or not something is good for election campaigning (the primary complaint, which may or may not have merit, I guess, depending on if you are a union or a business) is also not grounds for a legal decision. Four judges obviously thought there was legal grounds to vote the other way, but the five judges of the majority were not alone: The list of amicus briefs in favour of the appellant varies from the ACLU and First Amendment Rights organisations through to the Committee for the Freedom of the Press. Opinions of first amendment professors after the fact also include a number in favour of the opinion. Some, like the ACLU brief, https://transition.fec.gov/law/litigation/citizens_united_sc_08_ca1st_supp_brief_amici.pdf, are premised primarily on legalese, standards of scrutiny, and so on. Others, like the Broadcasters' Assocsiations briefs, http://www.cuvfec.com/documents/case-08-205/Supplemental_Amicus_Brief_of_California_Broadcasters_Association.pdf , are based more on principle: Media organisations are corporations, and if the law does not protect free speech to corporations, where does it leave the media?

It is entirely possible that Citizens United is terrible for campaign finance regulation. Four judges found that there was argument to uphold it. There are, however, obviously very competent arguments not invented by the five-judge majority that the case was correctly decided (in result, if not necessarily mechanism, I have not delved that deeply), not relating to campaign finance. Is the freedom of the press not more important than campaign finance law?

Out at present, so not able to delve too deeply, but from what I've read, the complaint from the dissenting Justices lay with Kennedy's decision to expand the scope of the case, and subsequent ruling, beyond what was originally petitioned by Citizen's United. This was deliberately done with a view to erase the McCain Feingold rules as they pertained to electoral finances and corporate speech.

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Out at present, so not able to delve too deeply, but from what I've read, the complaint from the dissenting Justices lay with Kennedy's decision to expand the scope of the case, and subsequent ruling, beyond what was originally petitioned by Citizen's United. This was deliberately done with a view to erase the McCain Feingold rules as they pertained to electoral finances and corporate speech.

That is certainly possible. I'll do some digging when I have time as well.

aloyisious

I'm looking at Dons response to the NYT story that the US Intelligence community hacked into the Russian Power Plant system: "Fake News" and at the same time saying it was virtual treason. I thought he was saying the NYT release of the fact that the US had "hack-attacked" Russia was virtual treason. The snag is that if the story was fake news, there'd be no "virtual treason" by NYT.

Whatever about what "virtual treason" might be, am I stretching too far in asking if Don was referring to some other party and not the NYT in respect to the "virtual treason" seeing as how he was reportedly not kept abreast of the attack?

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Out at present, so not able to delve too deeply, but from what I've read, the complaint from the dissenting Justices lay with Kennedy's decision to expand the scope of the case, and subsequent ruling, beyond what was originally petitioned by Citizen's United. This was deliberately done with a view to erase the McCain Feingold rules as they pertained to electoral finances and corporate speech.

OK, I griitted my teeth and had another dig into it. Almost every judge seems to concur in part and dissent in part with someone else. And I'm still not much wiser in the big scheme of things other than to observe that both sides seem to make perfectly valid legal points. Which, in fairness, I would hope to be the case from any judge on the Supreme Court.

The bit you reference about the dissent complaining about expanding beyond the scope originally petitioned is correct, it's actually at the beginning of the dissent, but it only consists of a minor part of the dissent. Stevens makes three observations here.

The first is that Citizen's United petitioned that the electioneering regulation didn't apply to them, as they were screening a documentary, not a political advert, and that it was being transmitted by video on demand, not public broadcast. If that petition were granted, then the law could stand, and CU could still win. This is true as far as it goes, but I think the majority is correct in its view on this matter. Citizen's United could call it whatever they wanted, but the 'documentary' was basically a hit piece on Senator Clinton filled with reasons to not vote for her, it was being broadcast just before the election, and if that isn't political electioneering, what is? They also decided that since the video on demand service could reach up to 34 million folks, it was a broadcast in the conventional sense of the world, even if there were no guarantee that the trigger number of 50,000 people would actually choose to watch it. The Majority thus decided to process the case as if it were political speech, not a documentary. In this, critics would be correct that they went further than necessary, but on the other hand, I don't think it was wrong for them to continue on and settle the question as it actually existed as opposed to claimed.

Steven's second suggestion was that the court accept CU's position that as they were predominantly funded by non-profits, they would fall under a different exception from the regulation, one which covers non-profits. The majority observed that, yes, the majority of the funds came from non-profit, but for-profits contributed as well, poisoning the whole lot. Stevens did not attempt to quantify what should be exempted as a de minimis for-profit contribution, possibly because as he was in the minority it would be a wasted effort anyway, but it does seem to me that if Congress had intended that there be a little wiggle room for for-profits, they would have said as much. His alternate argument that if share-holders of for-profits wanted to electioneer that they could throw the money into PACs seems logically correct, but also seems to miss the wood for the trees a bit.

The third option for the restriction in scope seems to be more on the legalese side of things, with the nature of the applied challenge. I don't claim to entirely understand it.

That was it. The majority of the rest of Steven's dissent is simple (Well, direct) legal argument on principles at hand, not a matter of scope or what it was that C.U. originally petitioned. It seems that the scope expansion was really just a relatively minor point of disagreement.

One thing Stevens does not say is that he does not attempt to infer any particular motivation to the majority's ruling.

BonnieSituation

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, I griitted my teeth and had another dig into it. Almost every judge seems to concur in part and dissent in part with someone else. And I'm still not much wiser in the big scheme of things other than to observe that both sides seem to make perfectly valid legal points. Which, in fairness, I would hope to be the case from any judge on the Supreme Court.

The bit you reference about the dissent complaining about expanding beyond the scope originally petitioned is correct, it's actually at the beginning of the dissent, but it only consists of a minor part of the dissent. Stevens makes three observations here.

The first is that Citizen's United petitioned that the electioneering regulation didn't apply to them, as they were screening a documentary, not a political advert, and that it was being transmitted by video on demand, not public broadcast. If that petition were granted, then the law could stand, and CU could still win. This is true as far as it goes, but I think the majority is correct in its view on this matter. Citizen's United could call it whatever they wanted, but the 'documentary' was basically a hit piece on Senator Clinton filled with reasons to not vote for her, it was being broadcast just before the election, and if that isn't political electioneering, what is? They also decided that since the video on demand service could reach up to 34 million folks, it was a broadcast in the conventional sense of the world, even if there were no guarantee that the trigger number of 50,000 people would actually choose to watch it. The Majority thus decided to process the case as if it were political speech, not a documentary. In this, critics would be correct that they went further than necessary, but on the other hand, I don't think it was wrong for them to continue on and settle the question as it actually existed as opposed to claimed.

Steven's second suggestion was that the court accept CU's position that as they were predominantly funded by non-profits, they would fall under a different exception from the regulation, one which covers non-profits. The majority observed that, yes, the majority of the funds came from non-profit, but for-profits contributed as well, poisoning the whole lot. Stevens did not attempt to quantify what should be exempted as a de minimis for-profit contribution, possibly because as he was in the minority it would be a wasted effort anyway, but it does seem to me that if Congress had intended that there be a little wiggle room for for-profits, they would have said as much. His alternate argument that if share-holders of for-profits wanted to electioneer that they could throw the money into PACs seems logically correct, but also seems to miss the wood for the trees a bit.

The third option for the restriction in scope seems to be more on the legalese side of things, with the nature of the applied challenge. I don't claim to entirely understand it.

That was it. The majority of the rest of Steven's dissent is simple (Well, direct) legal argument on principles at hand, not a matter of scope or what it was that C.U. originally petitioned. It seems that the scope expansion was really just a relatively minor point of disagreement.

One thing Stevens does not say is that he does not attempt to infer any particular motivation to the majority's ruling.

And to think you were abused this weekend for being biased.

I rarely agree with a lot of what you say but it's very clear from that fair synopsis of such a treacle-like argument you see the issues with CU.

Thargor

Getting slaughtered in the polls now, Biden and a handful of other Dems with double digit leads in key states according to Fox and Trump admin polls among others.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, I griitted my teeth and had another dig into it. Almost every judge seems to concur in part and dissent in part with someone else. And I'm still not much wiser in the big scheme of things other than to observe that both sides seem to make perfectly valid legal points. Which, in fairness, I would hope to be the case from any judge on the Supreme Court.

One thing Stevens does not say is that he does not attempt to infer any particular motivation to the majority's ruling.

Ta for expediting the answers-work. The big question now will this ruling have an absolute effect on CU-type and Super-Pac electioneering set-ups by restricting their fundraising to comply with FEC regulations [which they claimed they were exempt from] in future? It seems to me it will do so as a USSC ruling on the limitations of the FEC Regulations [until some-one brings up an "Important Point Of Law"} from my reading of your work.

Edit: the ruling will affect other Super-Pacs as well, looking at this dated example of S-P from 2016: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-citizens-united-a-modest-proposal

I'm also reading that CU is basically a Trump electioneering front and will [continue to] promote his re-election, as in the following: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/pro-trump-citizens-united-invests-in-modest-advertising-buy

duploelabs

Thargor wrote: »

Getting slaughtered in the polls now, Biden and a handful of other Dems with double digit leads in key states according to Fox and Trump admin polls among others.

Yep, even Bernie is beating him by 9 points according to Fox news.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/16/fox-news-poll-bernie-sanders-would-beat-trump-9-points

(yes I didn't link directly to the poll, but I'm loathe to give them the clicks)

Leroy42

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls. It is such a long way off voting that many people simply won't be paying too much attention and thus it is name recognition or dislike rather than any particular policies (although Trump is so overwhleming in his need for publicity that I would wager that many people are indeed pretty clued in on him at this stage) and second that America is deeply divided and a vast portion of the electorate casts its votes based on purely Red/Blue and nothing will change that.

Finally, turnout is the key. It is really important that the Dems focus on getting voters registered and voting. This alone, even with limited policies or plans, would be enough to win quite a sizeable election victory.

Penn

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls. It is such a long way off voting that many people simply won't be paying too much attention and thus it is name recognition or dislike rather than any particular policies (although Trump is so overwhleming in his need for publicity that I would wager that many people are indeed pretty clued in on him at this stage) and second that America is deeply divided and a vast portion of the electorate casts its votes based on purely Red/Blue and nothing will change that.

Finally, turnout is the key. It is really important that the Dems focus on getting voters registered and voting. This alone, even with limited policies or plans, would be enough to win quite a sizeable election victory.

Yeah, ensuring as many people have access to voting as possible will be absolutely key to a Dem victory. Proper registration drives and information will help counteract anything Reps do like purging voter records as they have been doing/attempting.

Water John

I suppose this Fox Poll 'doesn't exist' either. It's very early to fix on who the Dem candidate might be. Trump now finds himself where Hilary was, where everyone knows early it's he'll be the GOP nominee. so he is wide open as a constant target. They'll keep wearing away at him.
In reality it points to any Dem candidate once they all become more recognised beating him.

duploelabs

On the topic of Polls, I'd be interested to see how those republican senators who are up for re-election in 2020 are doing as I can't see Donald last a second if the Dems had both the house and two thirds of the senate

Stop moaning ffs

This is a fantastic and fascinating listen. And a scary one. Relating directly to Trump and the GOP. Give it a spin.


Bill Browder is Vladimir Putin’s No. 1 enemy. Armed with a true life story cut straight from a bestselling thriller, listen as Bill grippingly recounts his tale from Red Notice in an extraordinary interview, which sees him placed on Interpol’s most-wanted list, exposing crime, corruption and conspiracy at the highest levels of the Kremlin, and rededicating his life to find justice for his friend and lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, killed at the hands of the Russian government. There’s also the small matter of a missing $230 million... Buckle in.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/unfiltered-with-james-obrien/id1290769207?i=1000394759889

Water John

Not sure if any party ever held two thirds of the Senate, stand to be corrected.

MrFresh

Trump seems to be relying on the polls saying there is no support for impeachment but simultaneously calling them fake for showing him losing out to the Dems. His Twitter should be interesting today.

L1011

Water John wrote: »

Not sure if any party ever held two thirds of the Senate, stand to be corrected.

Democrats in '64 - and I did have to look that up. I'm not looking up for much earlier than that as when its <100 seats it requires some basic maths to work out 2/3rds and I've better things to be doing :pac:

The 60 level to work around filibusters easier has only happened once even vaguely recently; a decade ago.

duploelabs

Water John wrote: »

Not sure if any party ever held two thirds of the Senate, stand to be corrected.

Well let me rephrase it then, How many of the 'cult of trump' senators are up for re-election in 2020?