Also there's case history on this exact issue. NLRB and appeals court have ruled that a boss using that exact language is considered an order for an employee.
This is not an especially rational response, but all of this daydreaming about impeachment is making me hate the Democrats even more than I already do.
It all amounts to "Maybe there's some way we can get rid of Trump or reign in his administration without winning elections." Ugh! No, you fucking losers, go win a fucking election already. That's your fucking job.
In a normal political system, one way to convince people to vote for you is demonstrate how your opponents are covering for criminal activity. In this country it probably makes people support the enablers because it shows how manly they are.
I think the key is now to demonstrate your opponents are pathetic and ineffective, not criminal. Fortunately, those two strategies are complimentary now.
something something heighten the contradictions and SURELY people will see.
What's the other option? Run racist Democrats?
There's pretty obvious evidence that sexism cost Clinton enough votes to have won the election. Do you point out that men willing to run a campaign building on that are very likely to disregard other norms of society or do you just run somebody with a penis or two?
run somebody with a penis or two?
Double Dong Donkey Kong for president!
George Washington had, like, thirty goddamn hopes.
I've been thinking about how Labour turned things around after publishing a manifesto that laid out their ideas to the electorate, and then running in support of those ideas. It seems like a novel concept; I was thinking maybe the Democrats could try it.
It certainly worked for the Republicans in '94, with their stupid "Contract With America."
2: If impeachment and removal (I&R to satisfy pedants?) becomes realistic, it will be in the knowledge that Pence replaces him, or even if likely tenuous threads can be solidified, Ryan. It would still have independent value to get rid of him, we're seeing a hundred more ways each week.
It seems to be the option is either keeping a pot of impeachment bubbling away on the burner, or not doing that and giving Republicans the space they'd like to focus on their agenda.
As impeachment seems to be the only hope of averting an incipient war in the Gulf, I'll keep pinning my hopes on it thank you very much.
Hopes are great, but there's not much chance impeachment could happen so fast.
12: Right. I'm fine with keeping the Trump administration besieged by hearings and investigations if that will make it harder for them to get anything done.
I'm just annoyed by the trend, ever since the stupid "Hamilton electors" thing, of Democrats dreaming of getting out of this mess without somehow convincing more people to vote for them.
14 True.
15.2 God I hated that ridiculous "Hamilton electors" tripe.
Yes, the electoral college thing was bosh.
As I see it pressure needs to be applied from every front there is, rather than picking and choosing. On congressional GOP as much as Trump.
To the OP, it's an interesting observation being made recently that Trump does appear to appreciate the importance of not lying under oath, at least when you're pinned down. In the infamous 2007 deposition, where he was called out in dozens of ways, time after time when confronted with the facts he admitted them, while defending his non-sworn lies as based on feelings. OTOH a committee might be more deferential in questioning.
He also may be more senile than he was in 2007.
In other words, it also turns out, "Nice place ya got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it." is simply a compliment.
||
NMM to Adam West. The best of the Batmen.
|>
I know you're hurting, so I'll let that pass.
22 You can get in line behind Val, George, and Christian. Michael too.
Here's my prediction -- Trump will testify under oath voluntarily the day after he releases his tax returns.
21: Mr. Robot and I had the chance to meet Adam West a few times. He was an amazing storyteller. He had a reputation for being somewhat prickly, which was accurate, but he also came off as a really decent guy.
Will Arnett steps into #1 Batman slot.
Um, Labour lost this election by a shitload more than Hillary lost hers.
26: Not while Kevin Conroy still lives!
Labour lost this election by a shitload more than Hillary lost hers.
Well, that's what happens when centrists stubbornly refuse to get on board with the direction the rest of the party is taking. When will they learn that winning elections is more important than their misguided ideological peccadilloes?
||
The liberation of Raqqa begins.
|>
Touché
But I don't think it was across centrists who kept Corbyn out under our electoral system
Feckless, they are. Lazy. Unscrupulous, even.
||
Reading some of the CT comments about the UK election I was suddenly reminded of the Blueberry Park scenes from Snarkout Boys And The Avocado of Death.
|>
The liberation of Raqqa begins.
Also in the news today: ICE is stepping up deportation of Kurds from Nashville.
This is thoughtful and interesting. I'd bet people here will like it: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/race-to-bottom-crenshaw
Democrats dreaming of getting out of this mess without somehow convincing more people to vote for them.
I don't understand this at all. The guy is doing real, permanent damage, but the only respectable response is to wait 2 years? Wanting to do anything else, including, you know, follow the Constitutional process for handling someone who's done literally any one of ten things he's done, is somehow pusillanimous? What the actual fuck? If Trump literally shoots a guy on Fifth Avenue, are you going to get REALLY mad at Democrats for thinking he should be impeached instead of revisiting their plans for 2018?
Some war crimes to go with your collusion and obstruction?
follow the Constitutional process for handling someone who's done literally any one of ten things he's done, is somehow pusillanimous?
I'd love to do that. But as long as the Republicans control both houses of congress, it will never happen. There are no ethical or patriotic republican congresspeople. Period. So the Democrats winning control of one or both houses is the only option.
It's not possible even in 2019 without building up the evidence first, which will take public pressure, not just Bob Mueller. And who knows where the process of building up the evidence will take us. So we might as well push right now.
Let's impeach Trump in December 2024. Even if it fails, he'll still be out in January, unless his offense is canceling elections.
Speaking of this stuff bring out the derp. IANAL but Dershowitz and Turley both setting new standard in intellectually dishonest legal arguments that favor Trump. Dersh mainly around how "allowable" actions such as president firing Trump cannot be the basis of obstruction of justice and Turley in the area of what an irresponsible rule-breaker Comey has been with this Trump stuff. For instance, I guess Trump was Comey's client.
For example, under professional rule 1.6, lawyers need to secure authority to release information that "(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client to the disadvantage of the client; [or] (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person."
I'd love to do that. But as long as the Republicans control both houses of congress, it will never happen.
I think it could happen. Its a question of weather an unstoppable force can break down an immovable object.
The unstoppable force is Trump's jackassery and incompetence. The fecklessness of Congressional Republicans is an immovable object.
Is Trump really not capable of doing something so godawful incompetent/dangerous that even Republicans won't turn on him?
Honestly, I'm not betting on any real Congressional backbone here - and I fully expect that we are in for the full four years. But Trump is soooooooooo bad at his job that I don't think we can rule anything out.
Like, I wonder what would happen if the Pee Tapes came out. You think he could survive that?
I think it would be 50-50.
I fully predict Republicans to decide that Russia is true Americans' real ally and those weak western Europeans are undermining us. They're basically surrendering to Islam anyway.
real Congressional backbone
If Republicans start losing elections, they'll turn on Trump. Until then, they won't do a thing.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
47 The groundwork is already being laid.
"I've been thinking about how Labour turned things around after publishing a manifesto that laid out their ideas to the electorate, and then running in support of those ideas. It seems like a novel concept; I was thinking maybe the Democrats could try it."
This is 100% the way to go. Just put out a manifesto in favor of single payer, $15 minimum wage and free college.
'For the many, not the few' is a great slogan.
Also, free abortions for everyone and mandatory gay marriage.
What about vegan and vegetarian homeless people?
They get extra welfare payments and gold plating on their Obamaphones.
Expropriate all Trump properties and convert them to housing for homeless veterans and vegetarians.
I'm not an lawyer, but I assume the main problem with this case will be to somehow establish standing. Anyway, I'm aware it will not get Trump impeached, but it still seems vital to pursue it. Both on a "shaking the tree to see what falls out" and on "rattling the bars of the cage" grounds.
Plus, it keeps people aware that doing business at a Trump-branded place is giving money to Trump. Which means that fewer people will do it except explicitly to support Trump, making it more likely they'll do something illegal to keep the profits rolling in.
I assume the main problem with this case will be to somehow establish standing
DC can make the case that Trump ultimately has control over their budget. Maryland's case I guess would be more grounded in the balance of power over Federalism.
Maryland found some useful trivia for their lawsuit, that their 1776 state constitution included banishment as a potential punishment for executive and legislative peculation (not, ISTM, for emoluments, though there was an emoluments clause too).
Also its religious-oath clause mentions by name Quakers, Dunkers, and Menonists for special treatment.