Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Red]

I don't think Trump is making intentional steps towards Authoritarianism, as some sort of philosophical belief in the superiority of that as a system of government.

I think he just sees himself as the best leader, so he should have more power to do what he thinks should be done.

I also think he looks at the "strong" leaders around the world and thinks it is better for their countries to be lead by strong leaders who don't have to answer for every little comment or every little action and can take their people in the direction they feel is best without too much interference.

When I think "can't happen here", I'm thinking "one man rule". I don't believe Trump consciously had that in mind. Not sure he even anticipated winning the election.

On the plus side:

We are a long lasting constitutional republic. We don't have any banana republic history.
We have term limits on the office of the presidency.
We do still have a free press.

On the negative side:

Unlike Republicans of the Watergate era, today's GOP will never turn on Trump. No matter what he says or does. This may alter in the future, but we are not there yet.

Trump has no respect for the separation of powers established by the constitution. Thus he tells current and former administration officials to ignore all Congressional supoenas. He does not recognize the Constitutional right of congressional oversight of the Executive branch. Basically, this represents Trump dismissing our very constitution.

AG Barr seems like he is loyal to Trump, and not the Constitution. There may be other such examples in earlier administrations, but this seems the worst case of abandoning the independence of the Justice Dept. I've seen so far.

He has never made one single, heart-felt, effort to be a president for all Americans. He caters to his base, and only his base. In this respect, his is more a cult of personality, and it is clear that is exactly how he wants it.

The strong arm men he does praise, and makes no effort to hide the fact he admires, do not reflect American values. I leave open the possibility that I am simply naive as to what those values are. I may be overly idealistic about what my country stands for. And, indeed, there are many ugly chapters in our history. But when a reporter tells Trump that Putin has reporters killed, and Trump replies "you don't think we kill people too?", that does leave a lot to be desired where me and my notion of what we stand for is concerned. I could offer so many more examples besides Putin.

Those are some of the negatives that seem to erode our democratic institutions.

But, when someone says to me, "can't happen here", I consider that it can actually happen in a sort of accidental way, especially with a party that seems more like a slavish cult. I would never expect to wake up to a headline like "Trump dissolves Congress", no, no overt "one man rule" power grab. But, in increments, in bits and pieces, in response to the Democrats, or with the help of a Justice Dept. or SC amenable to a strong man Executive, I think it possible we can one day wake up to what "can't happen here". Without really recognizing it until there it is, upon us.

 

[One Brow]

Hes not trying to do evil things.

He is doing evil things, whether he is trying to or not.

 

[DasJazz]

He is doing evil things, whether he is trying to or not.

Damn that evil economy and historic low unemployment! It's just so evil that he is trying to secure the border that Democrats have used as a crisis talking point for years on end! Damn him for not escalating into a war with Iran who shot down a US drone. Oh the humanity!

 

[One Brow]

Damn that evil economy and historic low unemployment! It's just so evil that he is trying to secure the border that Democrats have used as a crisis talking point for years on end! Damn him for not escalating into a war with Iran who shot down a US drone. Oh the humanity!

Are you saying that since some of things Trump does are not evil, nothing he does is evil?

Let's start with a really hard one: a family follows US law in declaring asylum after crossing the border. Is it evil to separate the parents from the children of this family?

 

[Hotdog]

Are you saying that since some of things Trump does are not evil, nothing he does is evil?

Let's start with a really hard one: a family follows US law in declaring asylum after crossing the border. Is it evil to separate the parents from the children of this family?

They falsely claiming asylum when they crosss through other countries to get here, and/or there is no reason to flee your country. Other than you seek free stuff the Democrats promise.

By your logic the whole world could just claim asylum and take over the country if they please to. And then we might as well throw out all immigration laws.

Just come on in everyone. Come take the goods and services from the people who created them. Everything is free. Come live off the backs of other people. You didnt have to pay any taxes to help create this, but its yours to enjoy.

 

[One Brow]

They falsely claiming asylum when they crosss through other countries to get here, and/or there is no reason to flee your country. Other than you seek free stuff the Democrats promise.

By US law, the truth or falsity of their claim is decided in a courtroom hearing.

By your logic the whole world could just claim asylum and take over the country if they please to.

Do you support the President imprisoning people who have committed no crime, because he doesn't like the current law?

And then we might as well throw out all immigration laws.

I am *very* much in favor of a major re-write of our current immigration laws.

Just come on in everyone. Come take the goods and services from the people who created them. Everything is free. Come live off the backs of other people. You didnt have to pay any taxes to help create this, but its yours to enjoy.

The reverse is true of immigrants. They contribute much more to the economy than they take overall.

I see you didn't answer the question in the post you trolling.

 

[jazzrule]

Just so we are clear and factual, Mueller explicitly said that Trump could be charged with crimes if he left office in 2020, based on the results of Mueller's investigation.

Could versus should is very different.

 

[jazzrule]

You don't think Trump makes money from the Trump International Hotels? How more direct does it need to be for you?

Wow they would have to stay in his hotel everyday for a million years to match what was given to the Clintons for letting the Russian have so much of our uranium. Think much?

 

[Zombie]

America First!

Or second, second's still good right?

 

[Hotdog]

 

[Hotdog]

The weird thing about having Mueller testify is how did the Democrats not know what a **** show that was going to be and how out of it Mueller is?

There has to be a bunch of neo-liberals in that party just helping them march towards their death because secretly they cant stand where they are at right now.

 

[Red]

The resignation of Coats as Director of National Intelligence, and the appointment of a Trump loyalist, Rep. Ratcliffe, to that position, could conceivably be part of the plan to deligitimize the Mueller report. Would Ratcliffe come right out and say Russian interference in the 2016 election was a hoax?? Trump does want "hoax" to replace the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered to help Trump win.

If Ratcliffe did come out and say that, I would expect all hell to break loose among the rank and file in the intelligence community. Why are they serving their country if all their work is dismissed as hoax? Anyway, I can't help but think Trump wants a loyalist as DNI simply to support his hoax claim, and to defuse any efforts to protect future elections. One more step toward one man rule, all you folks who say "can't happen here".

http://www.businessinsider.com/dni-dan-coats-quit-white-house-suppressed-russia-warnings-nyt-2019-7

This is exactly what I said Trump was doing, and exactly what I said would happen if Trump's choice for DNI simply tells Trump only what he wants to hear. Trump controls the Republican Party, the Department of Justice, and now the Intelligence community. Consolidating power, in a fashion that "can't happen here":

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-intelligence-pick-attempt-neutralise-163819425.html

What Trump is doing:

“Trump is consolidating his personal control over the intelligence community,” said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA intelligence officer. He said the current directors of the CIA and FBI have found their hands tied increasingly when it comes to accurate intelligence assessment, by risk of being fired for something at odds with Trump’s views.

“I fear that there is a slow takeover of the norms and procedures of governance by this president, amassing unprecedented executive power,” Mowatt-Larssen, now at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, added. “To do that he needs to neutralise or at least silence the intelligence community. He has been doing that for three years, but this takes it to the new level.”

And what will happen:

"If Ratcliffe is confirmed and sought to politicise intelligence work further, it could lead to a clash with the intelligence agency professionals, warned John Sipher, a veteran of the CIA’s national clandestine services.

“If he tries to spin intelligence in a different way that it is presented to him, his work force would rebel,” Sipher said, predicting there would be a spike in resignations and leaks. “He is going to get a lot of knives stuck in his back.”