Yeah was just reading about that
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/15/media/fox-news-u-s-attorney-investigation/
Now apparently one of Aisles old lawyers, Mark Mukasey, might be the replacement
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Yeah was just reading about that
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/15/media/fox-news-u-s-attorney-investigation/
Now apparently one of Aisles old lawyers, Mark Mukasey, might be the replacement
I sincerely hope Preet starts his rounds on the news shows.
He was on the list of people not allowed to fly to Russia and had gone after Russian criminals. Trump was never going to let this one go.
It sure looks that way. If further down the line, it turns out this guy had a part to play in the Steele dossier, then that would seal it for me.
This is a bit strange.
Its definitely something one would do to stay under the radar and use this method of communicating if they are hiding something. Its been going on for a long time.
2005 - Al Qaeda were doing the same thing
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/techsidebar.html
It must be one of those sophisticated Trump negotiations:
TRUMP: "Here's the deal, Mr Banana - you stop doin' those investigative thingies, and you get to keep your investigating job."
Just the norm for this administration. Not many people expected them to be a stellar example of professionalism, but a bit of decency would not go amiss with the way you treat the attorneys.
A series of PR disasters merely looking for a place to happen.
I really hope they can nail him for something big.
I really hope they can nail him for something big.
He's not to be messed with.So, so close to nailing Trump, and he knew it too. Yet again we all know something (or think we know) but it just won't stick, and so yet again Trump carries on laughing at the rest of us, all the time passing laws that take the USA back to the stone age.
So is this how it's going to be from now on? Any time anyone is threat to him, he gets to fire them and there is nothing anyone can do about it because they'll probably get fired too. Completely immune.
If that's the case, enjoy your dictatorship.
If that's the case, enjoy your dictatorship.
Depends on how one interprets this. Presidents generally clean house and sack appointees from the last administration and install their own appointees. Maybe Trump is just doing that, or maybe there's a nefarious reason related to Bannon and Hannity's musings about the deep state. In either case, if Trump sacked Bahaara and it is revealed Preet was about to embark on an investigation of something Trump related, that will not look good.
Well it certainly does seem to be the case assuming that letter Judd Legum tweeted above has come directly from Bahaara's side.
If:
- Sessions told him he was staying
- Then it emerged that an investigation into Fox and an investigation into Trump's conflict of interests were going to be taken up by Bahaara
- He was subsequently fired because of it and will be replaced by Mark Mukasey.
- Mark Mukasey has been had picked by Trump on the recommendation by a close friend.
That certainly adds up to Trump managing investigations into himself by himself.
Interesting historical parallel though...
Pres. Andrew Johnson (R) ran afoul of the republicans controlling Congress over the issues surrounding reconstruction and then started attempting to fire those in appointed federal positions who disagreed with him.
He attempted to fire Sec of War Edwin Stanton, a leader of the republican opposition to Johnson, who basically refused to be fired by locking himself in his office and citing the Tenure of Office Act. He stayed there until the Senate voted to overturn the President's decision, leading to Johnson's impeachment proceedings.
Trump may very well end up following the same path Johnson took.
Yes, all of that needs more investigation. If its revealed he sacked him because he was preparing an investigation against a Trump action/policy/interest , then that will be a bigger story.
A pretty good presentation of Bannon's views and how they have influenced Trump.
One positive that's gotta be starting to happen is that those voters who were on the fence about Trump and decided to take the plunge for him must be rethinking their choice. I know one who text me this morning talking about John Kasich on Meet the Press and saying he's the one they should have nominated.
I agree. Trump managed to eek out a victory based on the Comey letter, Hillary's lack of activity in MI, WI etc and the damage done by Wikileaks and the Deplorables comment. Once the sentiment from each of these things wears off, Trump's support as President erodes to a fairly low level. His path to victory was essentially paved by getting a good number of independents and also having tepid Dems stay home and not vote for Hillary. Once the independents who voted for him realize the ramifications of losing health care or having their premiums rise, or on other fronts come to grips that there will be no border wall etc. His support levels will drop well into the 30s, and once that happens it will put a lot of stress on him being able to retain his base.
There will be a trend element involved too. Some Trump supporters, maybe even hardcore ones, will have a moment of realisation that this guy is not fighting their corner on the issue they aligned themselves with him over and they will feel let down and that will turn into resentment and the confirmation bias will erode. This will then snowball as the echo chambers start filling with more and more negative angles from voices they trust and they start to question their own views on his actions.
That would take some doing.
@Raoul
Don't know much about Cuomo. Is he popular with the democrat base and is he tainted in any way?
Don't know much about Cuomo. Is he popular with the democrat base and is he tainted in any way?
He's pretty clean. His Dad was long expected to run in 92 but never did. At the time, the likes of Dan Quayle were hoping he would run so they could use a mafia narrative in negative ads against him.
Andrew is pretty straightforward. Served as HUD Secretary under Bill Clinton, then as NY Attorney General, then as Governor of the 4th most populous state, which if it were a country, would have the 13th biggest GDP in the world.
He's half the man his father was, but would still make a fantastic President.
He also pushed pro-LGBT rights policies, is unattached to the ACA as he led NY into forming their own state-wide exchange instead of joining the ACA exchange, and is famous for his support of more strict gun control (SAFE Act), he's also pro-refugee/immigrant.
The one sticking point I can find is when he set up a commission to weed out corruption in NY government offices and then shut it down after it began investigating some things close to his campaign. He ran afoul of Bharara on that.
The one sticking point I can find is when he set up a commission to weed out corruption in NY government offices and then shut it down after it began investigating some things close to his campaign. He ran afoul of Bharara on that.
Isn't he hated by the progressive wing?
If the ACA is this popular, why did it not appear to play in Clinton's favour?
I am seeing a lot of places where the GoP is strong up in arms.
I don't get it.
What Pexbo said, plus the fact that when polled an embarrassing number of Republican voters thought that Obamacare and the ACA were 2 different things.
The GOP is panicking because they are getting major pressure from their biggest donors who are staunch conservatives and universal healthcare goes against their every moral fabric. Once the Trump wave fades away they still have to go back to those people for election money in the long run.
There's a thin line between believing propaganda and the utility of having tangible healthcare. A lot of Republicans and independents are benefiting from the ACA, which is probably why GOP congresspeople are getting roasted at townhalls as the reality of a potential repeal begins to set in for the beneficiaries of the Obamacare law.
I can't get my head around it. if you depend on something, why vote for people who are trying to repeal what you depend on? Or, why not come out and vote to defend it?
@Raoul is there anything Obama can do to rally the dems, cant he take like a faux opposition leader position to keep ther pressure on Trump?
People vote on more than just healthcare. They vote on preserving identity (immigration), economics (anti-free trade), as well as a variety of other issues.
- Status