Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Herman]

30 million dollars spent for him to conclude the report with that. 

what were the total costs of the failed Benghazi hearings?

[Todd]

what were the total costs of the failed Benghazi hearings?

I'm sure this isn't whataboutery.  No, it can't be. 

[SimonNZ]

George Conway: No one in this country is above the law. The Supreme Court is about to teach that lesson.

"Twenty-six years ago, I published my first op-ed. Entitled "'No Man in This Country ... Is Above the Law,'" it addressed news reports that President Bill Clinton planned to claim an immunity from having to respond to Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit. "In a case involving his private conduct," I wrote, "a President should be treated like any private citizen. The rule of law requires no more — and no less."

The piece led to my ghostwriting briefs for Jones, including a Supreme Court brief two years later. The Supreme Court agreed unanimously that Jones could proceed, and, like the op-ed, quoted from the Founders' debates about the status of the president: "Far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment." Which meant that while a president could be impeached for official misconduct, he "is otherwise subject to the laws" — and therefore could be sued — "for his purely private acts."

I couldn't have imagined then that another president would challenge that proposition. Then again, I couldn't have imagined President Donald Trump.

But here we are. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear telephonic arguments in three cases addressing whether Trump can keep his tax and financial information from being disclosed, whether from Congress or criminal prosecutors. In Trump v. Vance, which involves a New York state grand jury investigation, Trump's lawyers argue that, even when it comes to purely private conduct, the presidency insulates him from the legal process.

The case arises from a criminal investigation into the Trump Organization, and it seems there's plenty worth examining: whether, as suggested by extensive reporting in this newspaper and other outlets, Trump's businesses may have dodged taxes. And whether Trump's hush-money payments, made through his lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, violated state law. (Cohen pleaded guilty to federal crimes arising from those payments, which the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan said were made "at the direction of Individual-1" — Trump.)

The state grand jury subpoenaed the Trump Organization and Trump's accounting firm, Mazars, seeking tax returns and financial records. Trump sued to block the subpoena to Mazars — on the ground that he's president. The lower federal courts rejected his pleas, and now he's in the Supreme Court. Where he will lose — or should.

To say Trump's argument is frivolous demeans frivolity. Clinton v. Jones dictates the result: The subpoenaed documents have nothing to do with Trump's presidential duties — zip. That alone does it.

But Trump's case is even weaker than Clinton's. At least Clinton was being sued personally. He ultimately had to give evidence himself, which he did (infamously) at a deposition. But because the suit had nothing to do with presidential duties, the Supreme Court said it could proceed.

Here, Trump hasn't been charged with or sued for anything. He's not being required to do anything. The subpoenas have been directed at his company and his accountants. They don't require his time or attention.

Trump's position stupefies. In essence: Authorities can't investigate anything touching his personal affairs — including, ahem, payments to pornographic actresses — because he's president. Think of the logic: Not only does the president enjoy a personal constitutional immunity — his businesses do, too.

It doesn't matter that Trump challenges a criminal inquiry, while Jones involved a civil suit. Whether a sitting president can be indicted remains unsettled, but Trump hasn't been charged. In fact, presidents have given evidence in criminal matters many times — including ones touching them personally. Chief Justice John Marshall ordered President Thomas Jefferson to produce documents in Aaron Burr's treason case. A unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, and rejected a claim of presidential privilege — in a case in which Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator. Clinton provided grand jury and criminal trial testimony in the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations — matters in which he was potentially a target.

Trump complains nonetheless that letting 50 states conduct investigations involving presidents would endanger the presidency, as well as federal supremacy. A short answer is one the court gave in Jones, where Clinton raised the specter of countless private plaintiffs bringing meritless suits: Courts can address vexatious litigation case by case, and if that doesn't suffice, Congress can legislate a fix.

A more fundamental answer, though, may be found in an amicus curiae brief in the Vance case, a brief submitted by the Protect Democracy Project and joined by me and 36 other conservatives: "The Constitution is concerned with the supremacy of federal law, not the supremacy of federal officials."

Likewise, the Constitution is concerned with protecting the presidency, not the person who happens to be the president. That's because no one in this country is above the law. The Supreme Court is now called upon to teach that lesson once again — even if Trump will likely never learn it."

[SimonNZ]

Listening to a recent episode of Al Franklin's podcast which has an interview with author Dave Fahrenthold. I have very mixed feelings about Franklin as a host. He can't decide if he wants to be a comedian or he wants to be serious, but he often has very interesting guests, though he also wastes a lot of time getting to them.

Anyway, Fahrenthold goes over some of the reporting he broke on Trump's misuse of his charity foundation and the myth of his charitable givings, as well as channeling government business to his hotels etc., and while I'd read some of these there's still more I hadn't heard, including one about him turning up at a charity for an orphanage for children with AIDS, taking an empty chair on stage that wasn't meant for him but for donators, posing for photos with the donators to be released to the media, and then quickly leaving without giving any money. An orphanage for children with AIDS.

Looking back now at a long article Fahrenthold wrote for the Washington Post in 2016 on the subject:

Trump boasts about his philanthropy. But his giving falls short of his words.

Lest we forget, as every one of his unforgivable scandals gets swept under the rug by a new scandal.

[SimonNZ]

You seem obsessed with every scandal.

You seem indifferent.

[Daverz]

up at a charity for an orphanage for children with AIDS, taking an empty chair on stage that wasn't meant for him but for donators, posing for photos with the donators to be released to the media, and then quickly leaving without giving any money. An orphanage for children with AIDS.

Yes, I remember that one.  Trump has always been completely phony in every way.  It's Franken, by the way.   It sounds like Al hasn't changed much since his Air America days.  I really enjoyed his show then, but sometimes he could be really condescending and rude to guests.

[SimonNZ]

Yes, I remember that one.  Trump has always been completely phony in every way.  It's Franken, by the way.   It sounds like Al hasn't changed much since his Air America days.  I really enjoyed his show then, but sometimes he could be really condescending and rude to guests.

<looking back> Ah. Force of habit. I did know it was "Franken".

[SimonNZ]

Your moral signaling is obvious and crude.

You'll have to explain to me what you think "moral signaling" means, and how being disgusted by unethical and criminal behavior qualifies.

[SimonNZ]

Never mind. You clearly are such a good person.

When a "Trump kills puppies" scandal hits I'm sure you'll be here to remind us how morally outraged you are by it. 

Okay...what would be the correct response to the news that Trump kills puppies?


(actually I already know the answer to this: a group of Trumpists were asked how they would actually react to the news that he'd "shot someone on 5th Avenue". Every one of them said unhesitatingly: "he must have had a good reason")

[Daverz]

I'm not really following the conversation with this new fool, but the complaint about "moral signalling" caught my eye.  What is conservatism but "moral signalling"?  What conservatives are on about when they complain about liberal "virtue signalling" is that, as "everyone knows",  liberals are all amoral heathens, so any liberal moral arguments must be disingenuous nonsense.  To conservatives morality can only properly be about pee pees and wee wees and the proper maintenance of traditional hierarchy (knowing your place).  In other words, morality as understood by pre-pubescent boys.

[JBS]

I'm not really following the conversation with this new fool, but the complaint about "moral signalling" caught my eye.  What is conservatism but "moral signalling"?  What conservatives are on about when they complain about liberal "virtue signalling" is that, as "everyone knows",  liberals are all amoral heathens, so any liberal moral arguments must be disingenuous nonsense.  To conservatives morality can only properly be about pee pees and wee wees and the proper maintenance of traditional hierarchy (knowing your place).  In other words, morality as understood by pre-pubescent boys.

You are behind the times.
The Right now prides itself on ignoring morality and the various ideals of libertarianism (what I now call constitutional conservatism). Any attempt by a constitutional conservative to uphold those ideals and moral standards is called virtue signalling.  I confess that I had not heard the term moral signalling before.

The Right is socially conservative, but only when it finds that useful. Hence its fetish with guns, its tolerance of police abusing anyone,  its hatred of immigrants, and its advocacy of "freedom of religion" as a cover for maintaining the cultural dominance of Christianity. Its crusade against abortion is mostly a way to persuade itself that the Democrats are evil who must be stopped.

[FelixSkodi]

Do you believe every negative story you hear about Trump? I feel at this point that those with TDS probably accept any negative news about him whether it's true or not because their self-righteous, intolerantly tolerant morality has to feel outraged by him to justify its pathetic existence.

I'm sure after Trump gets caught killing puppies that kittens are on his hit list. 

I would say that nuance is lacking. My two suggestions for anyone wanting to get some insight into conservatism is to watch this interview with Robert Bork, Jr. about his father: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J0yRHal58M, and to read McConnell's absolutely brilliant memoir, one of the most blunt ones to date.

[arpeggio]

What do you expect? These Trumpsters like to call Republicans who think Trump is unfit 'clowns'.

[Herman]

Okay...what would be the correct response to the news that Trump kills puppies?

Dowder and Todd would count their money, and feel glee, especially if they were 'liberal' puppies.

[SimonNZ]

A bit of a tangent, but: you just recommended Mitch McConnell's memoir. Does it read in that like he lives by that ideal?

[SimonNZ]

In other random political podcast-related news:

I listened to David Axelrod's interview with presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin from his The Axe Files today and it was superb. It was originally done just after Trump's election, but holds up well three years later, especially as they're both so smart and articulate (even if his voice is kind of unsuited to radio - like the name-calling teacher in Ferris Beuller), doing lots of compare-and-contrast with aspects of American history DKG has covered in her many books (books which I still havent' found time to get started on, dammit).

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/turner-podcast-network/the-axe-files-presented-by-the-university-of-chicago-institute/e/68609836

[SimonNZ]

I think perhaps I must be misunderstanding your previous post.

[Herman]

That's intellectual disingenuous, as is a lot of this thread.

And yet you have become a GMG member, two days ago, to be on this thread.

[Karl Henning]

Republicans grow nervous about losing the Senate amid worries over Trump's handling of the pandemic

[...]
Republicans are increasingly nervous they could lose control of the Senate this fall as a potent combination of a cratering economy, President Trump's handling of the pandemic and rising enthusiasm among Democratic voters dims their electoral prospects.

In recent weeks, GOP senators have been forced into a difficult political dance as polling shifts in favor of Democrats: touting their own response to the coronavirus outbreak without overtly distancing themselves from a president whose management of the crisis is under intense scrutiny but who still holds significant sway with Republican voters.

"It is a bleak picture right now all across the map, to be honest with you," said one Republican strategist closely involved in Senate races who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss concerns within the party. "This whole conversation is a referendum on Trump, and that is a bad place for Republicans to be. But it's also not a forever place."

[Karl Henning]

Heckuva job, Mr President!

Top Trump economic advisers say unemployment rate could surpass 20 percent, job market could worsen