Assessment of Mr. Trump

[One Bad Pig]

I never argued no one thought this, OBP. I merely pointed out I am not seeing it as a widespread phenomenon - and I do not have those fears any longer. I think our democratic institutions can withstand Mr. Trump and will eventually undo the harms he is doing to them.

I pointed it out because JimL is fairly mainstream Democrat, AFAICT. As such, I don't think he agrees with you.

[JimL]

The president has an unfettered power to pardon. It's in the constitution. I have no doubt that Trump will likely abuse that power to protect himself.

Not completely unfettered, it's an impeachable offense should he use the pardon to obstruct justice which he may try to do in order to protect himself should the investigation get to close.

Should that occur, it will be dealt with either by an incoming new Congress (possibly) or by the next election cycle.

No guarantee on that, the republican Congress has shown itself to be all in with the treasonous oligarch and too much damage could be done by him and his loyalist minions in 4 years.

I frankly do NOT want to see Trump impeached or taken out of office before 2020. Should that happen, Pence takes his place (unless he is also implicated), and I think Pence has a FAR better chance of beating a Democratic candidate in 2020. Trump may have the disposition of a demagogue, but Pence is a true ideologue who's views very much concern me. As things are right now, I don't think Trump has a prayer. He won by a VERY marrow margin, and his approval numbers have been on a downward spiral ever since.

Yes, Trump basically has his knuckleheaded base still supporting him, I think he's down to 31% approval rating, probably the worst approval rating at this point in an administration ever. I don't care for Pence either, and he isn't out of the woods yet in this investigation either, he lied about Flynn's conversation with the Russians concerning the Obama sanctions. So it's not like he didn't know something about what was going on. But even Pence, should he step in, though he is an ideologue, he's not, I don't think, a dangerous corrupt wannabee dictator like Trump. Same with P. Ryan the #3 in line, I don't care for them, but I don't fear for democracy with them in there either.

[carpedm9587]

Keep your eye on the economy.

I frankly don't think it is going to help him. The market has been going gangbusters since January 2016, job growth has been slightly behind Obama's second term numbers (but still robust), job participation index has been in decent territory, but his approval ratings just keep getting worse. The man is playing largely to one audience: the core base of "never abandon him" conservatives. I fully expect the "team colors" to come out again in 2020, but Trump has so successfully mobilized the left, and they so badly outnumber the right, and so alientated so many sectors (minorities, women, LBGTQ, ecologists, scientists, etc.) I cannot even vaguely imagine him willing.

But we shall see....

[carpedm9587]

I pointed it out because JimL is fairly mainstream Democrat, AFAICT. As such, I don't think he agrees with you.

He probably doesn't. I don't know how "mainstream" he is, but I can only repeat my experience. I know of a lof of people on the left who believe Trump admires despots, has tendencies of a despot, and would probably seize power if he could. I don't know any who still think he is likely to, or to even try. I'm sure there are people out there who still fear the latter, but I'm not one of them and I don't personally know any of them nor see this as a major theme in the press.

[carpedm9587]

Not completely unfettered, it's an impeachable offense should he use the pardon to obstruct justice which he may try to do in order to protect himself should the investigation get to close.

You're right - the term "unfettered" was too large. Article II, Section II of the Constitution says, "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is nothing in there about obstruction of justice.

The constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," leaving a great deal of latitude for a decision to impeach. So, if Trump were to start pardoning anyone with ties to him that is indicted, Congress could move to impeach on those grounds.

Technically, such pardoning could also trigger the 25th Amendment, which says, "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

In reality - with a Republican Congress, VP, and a 100% Republican cabinet comprised of almost exclusively white men - none of this is likely to happen.

No guarantee on that, the republican Congress has shown itself to be all in with the treasonous oligarch and too much damage could be done by him and his loyalist minions in 4 years.

Life does not have "guarantees" JimL, but the probability, IMO, is virtually nonexistent. Our system of checks and balances is largely operational. That does not mean Trump is not enacting policies I find reprehensible, but so far everything he has done has been within the bounds of law - or has been challenged and slowed by the legal process. The system is working. It's messy - but it's working.

Yes, Trump basically has his knuckleheaded base still supporting him, I think he's down to 31% approval rating, probably the worst approval rating at this point in an administration ever. I don't care for Pence either, and he isn't out of the woods yet in this investigation either, he lied about Flynn's conversation with the Russians concerning the Obama sanctions. So it's not like he didn't know something about what was going on. But even Pence, should he step in, though he is an ideologue, he's not, I don't think, a dangerous corrupt wannabee dictator like Trump. Same with P. Ryan the #3 in line, I don't care for them, but I don't fear for democracy with them in there either.

My hopes are strategic, JimL. Right now, the government is badly skewed to the right. The only branch of government that is not is the judiciary. Trump is busily skewing the lower courts to the right (very much under the smokescreen of his incessant media barrage), but SCOTUS remains balanced at 4-1-4. If a Republican wins in 2020, there is a good chance that Ginsburg and Kennedy will both be retired or dead before 2024. That will swing SCOTUS badly to the right, putting all three government branches in one set of hands. That would be bad, IMO. So it is vital for a Democrat to be elected in 2020 to preserve the balance on SCOTUS. The best bet for a Democrat to win, IMO, is for Trump to remain in office and to run unopposed in the Republican primaries. Should a different Republican run, especially a qualified one, then the only hope for keeping the court balanced will be a shift in the Senate to Democrat control.

It's all about the long term objectives. Mine are to restore a reasonable bipaertisan balance to government, and to see Trump escorted from office in January, 2021.

[JimL]

You're right - the term "unfettered" was too large. Article II, Section II of the Constitution says, "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is nothing in there about obstruction of justice.

The point though is, that yes, the President has the power to pardon, but he does not have the power to obstruct justice. If the intent of the pardon is to obstruct justice, that's a no go.

The constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," leaving a great deal of latitude for a decision to impeach. So, if Trump were to start pardoning anyone with ties to him that is indicted, Congress could move to impeach on those grounds.

True, Congress can impeach for almost any reason they see fit because exactly what defines high crimes and misdemeaners is pretty much left up to them. "Technically," they merely need the votes.

Technically, such pardoning could also trigger the 25th Amendment, which says, "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

Yes, I believe that is specifically meant to cover those cases wherein mental or cognative difficulties come into play.

In reality - with a Republican Congress, VP, and a 100% Republican cabinet comprised of almost exclusively white men - none of this is likely to happen.

So long as they have the support of their constituents, no, not likely.

Life does not have "guarantees" JimL, but the probability, IMO, is virtually nonexistent. Our system of checks and balances is largely operational. That does not mean Trump is not enacting policies I find reprehensible, but so far everything he has done has been within the bounds of law - or has been challenged and slowed by the legal process. The system is working. It's messy - but it's working.

So far, yes, so far the institutions are holding up.

My hopes are strategic, JimL. Right now, the government is badly skewed to the right. The only branch of government that is not is the judiciary. Trump is busily skewing the lower courts to the right (very much under the smokescreen of his incessant media barrage), but SCOTUS remains balanced at 4-1-4. If a Republican wins in 2020, there is a good chance that Ginsburg and Kennedy will both be retired or dead before 2024. That will swing SCOTUS badly to the right, putting all three government branches in one set of hands. That would be bad, IMO. So it is vital for a Democrat to be elected in 2020 to preserve the balance on SCOTUS. The best bet for a Democrat to win, IMO, is for Trump to remain in office and to run unopposed in the Republican primaries. Should a different Republican run, especially a qualified one, then the only hope for keeping the court balanced will be a shift in the Senate to Democrat control.

It's all about the long term objectives. Mine are to restore a reasonable bipaertisan balance to government, and to see Trump escorted from office in January, 2021.

I agree, but we need more than a bipartisan government, that doesn't work either if one of the partisan sides is republican.

[carpedm9587]

The point though is, that yes, the President has the power to pardon, but he does not have the power to obstruct justice. If the intent of the pardon is to obstruct justice, that's a no go.

The constitution says nothing about pardoning powers limited by obstruction of justice - hence my observation that the only recourse if he chooses to do that is articles of impeachment, the 25th Amendment, or the next election cycle.

True, Congress can impeach for almost any reason they see fit because exactly what defines high crimes and misdemeaners is pretty much left up to them. "Technically," they merely need the votes.

Correct.

Yes, I believe that is specifically meant to cover those cases wherein mental or cognative difficulties come into play.

What is meant and what is said may be two different things. It says they merely need to agree.

So long as they have the support of their constituents, no, not likely.

Correct.

So far, yes, so far the institutions are holding up.

Yes- they are.

I agree, but we need more than a bipartisan government, that doesn't work either if one of the partisan sides is republican.

I do not agree with that observation - humorous or otherwise.

[JimL]

The constitution says nothing about pardoning powers limited by obstruction of justice - hence my observation that the only recourse if he chooses to do that is articles of impeachment, the 25th Amendment, or the next election cycle.

Obstruction of Justice is a separate issue than is the pardoning powers of the President. Having the power to do the latter doesn't give the president the authority to abuse the former. Obstruction of Justice is against the law and the President isn't above the law. Hence, the investigation began with the firing of Comey.

What is meant and what is said may be two different things. It says they merely need to agree.

Well, true, it isn't spelled out. My guess is that the Founding Fathers assumed common sense would prevail. Unable to perform the job typically means physically or mentally unable to function.

I do not agree with that observation - humorous or otherwise.

Surely we can jest. The parties aren't the biggest problem, the biggest problem in my opinion is the right wing propaganda machine that's driving the party. No, there is no such thing on the left.

[carpedm9587]

Obstruction of Justice is a separate issue than is the pardoning powers of the President. Having the power to do the latter doesn't give the president the authority to abuse the former. Obstruction of Justice is against the law and the President isn't above the law. Hence, the investigation began with the firing of Comey.

I am not suggesting Trump is not trying to obstruct justice. President Nixon did it before him. President Clinton was probably guilty as well. Trump is going to do pretty much everything he can to avoid these accusations. Pardoning, however, is a different issue. The Constitution does not limit his powers (except in cases of impeachment), so if he sets out to do so - there is no legal case that can be broought against him for "obstruction" because he is given those powers in the constitution. Congress can impeach him for it, Article 25 can be used if people want to argue such actions are an indication of his incapacity to lead, or the voters can dump him in 2020. Those are essentially the only options I see.

Well, true, it isn't spelled out. My guess is that the Founding Fathers assumed common sense would prevail. Unable to perform the job typically means physically or mentally unable to function.

First of all, the 25th amendment wwas ratified in 1965, largely driven by the Kennedy assassination, so it has nothing to do with the FFs. Second, mental and physical ability are certainly two issues, but others include such things as being compromised in some fashion. For example, if the President's son were kidnapped, a case could be made that this would compromise the president's ability to act independently. The same is true if someone has "dirt" on the president (e.g., if the so-called pee-pee tapes turned out to be real).

Surely we can jest. The parties aren't the biggest problem, the biggest problem in my opinion is the right wing propaganda machine that's driving the party. No, there is no such thing on the left.

"No" is a pretty absolute word. The left certainly has their propaganda machines. I will acknowledge that they are nowhere near as extensive or well funded or well organized as the right. And when I think of "extreme pundits" with nationally known names, I immediately think of Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. No names on the left even come to mind.

But I think people on the right will point to the so-called "main stream media" as being the propaganda machine of the left, because they view it as so badly skewed to the left.

We live in "interesting times," as the ancient ill-wish goes.

[JimL]

I am not suggesting Trump is not trying to obstruct justice. President Nixon did it before him. President Clinton was probably guilty as well. Trump is going to do pretty much everything he can to avoid these accusations. Pardoning, however, is a different issue. The Constitution does not limit his powers (except in cases of impeachment), so if he sets out to do so - there is no legal case that can be broought against him for "obstruction" because he is given those powers in the constitution. Congress can impeach him for it, Article 25 can be used if people want to argue such actions are an indication of his incapacity to lead, or the voters can dump him in 2020. Those are essentially the only options I see.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If the President decided to pardon Gen. Flynn with the intent to cover up his own illegalities, then that is obstruction of Justice and has nothing to do with the pardon itself. The only question then is in how do you prove intent?

First of all, the 25th amendment wwas ratified in 1965, largely driven by the Kennedy assassination, so it has nothing to do with the FFs.

Ooops, of course.

Second, mental and physical ability are certainly two issues, but others include such things as being compromised in some fashion. For example, if the President's son were kidnapped, a case could be made that this would compromise the president's ability to act independently. The same is true if someone has "dirt" on the president (e.g., if the so-called pee-pee tapes turned out to be real).

Good points.

"No" is a pretty absolute word. The left certainly has their propaganda machines. I will acknowledge that they are nowhere near as extensive or well funded or well organized as the right. And when I think of "extreme pundits" with nationally known names, I immediately think of Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. No names on the left even come to mind.

That is basically my point, and they are so extensive and so well funded that the republican party is driven by them.

But I think people on the right will point to the so-called "main stream media" as being the propaganda machine of the left, because they view it as so badly skewed to the left.

Yes, the right wing propagandists have achieved their goal, and Trump has taken advantage of that in continuing to dismiss the MSM as fake news.

We live in "interesting times," as the ancient ill-wish goes.

Yes, we certainly do, hopefully republicans will wake up and smell the coffee. My opinion!

[Darth Executor]

and so alientated so many sectors (minorities, women, LBGTQ, ecologists, scientists, etc.) I cannot even vaguely imagine him willing.

But we shall see....

Trump allegedly did most of his woman alienating before the last campaign, and won pretty much similar % of women as previous candidates. Minorities vote democrat religiously no matter who the republican is, they're a non-factor. The last 3 groups might as well not even exist considering how few people are in them.

Trump's victory mostly depends on what he can deliver to the working class in swing states. That's what gave Obama his victory and what will give Trump his.

[Adrift]

"No" is a pretty absolute word. The left certainly has their propaganda machines. I will acknowledge that they are nowhere near as extensive or well funded or well organized as the right. And when I think of "extreme pundits" with nationally known names, I immediately think of Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. No names on the left even come to mind.

But I think people on the right will point to the so-called "main stream media" as being the propaganda machine of the left, because they view it as so badly skewed to the left.

We live in "interesting times," as the ancient ill-wish goes.

Sorkin, Stewart, Colbert, Chomsky, Nader, Finkelstein, Maddow, Huffington, Olbermann, Maher, Matthews, Baher, Uygur, Kasparian, Siegel, Cornish, Gross, Glass, etc. And it's not just people on the right who would make the claim that the mainstream media leans heavily left. Centrists like myself also make that claim, because, well, it's a fact. Most of Hollywood, most news media, and even most publicly funded media, leans left. The reason why stations like Fox News, and talk radio pundits like Limbaugh, and Savage stand out is because their right-leaning agendas are heavily contrasted against all of the left-leaning media that's the norm.

[rogue06]

Says the guy who can't even figure out how to use your and you're.

BAWYAbbCQAAycy5.jpg

[rogue06]

I agree, but we need more than a bipartisan government, that doesn't work either if one of the partisan sides is republican.

If you listen to the MSM the definition of bipartisanship is when a Republican agrees with the Democrats.

[rogue06]

I frankly don't think it is going to help him. The market has been going gangbusters since January 2016, job growth has been slightly behind Obama's second term numbers (but still robust), job participation index has been in decent territory, but his approval ratings just keep getting worse. The man is playing largely to one audience: the core base of "never abandon him" conservatives. I fully expect the "team colors" to come out again in 2020, but Trump has so successfully mobilized the left, and they so badly outnumber the right, and so alientated so many sectors (minorities, women, LBGTQ, ecologists, scientists, etc.) I cannot even vaguely imagine him willing.

But we shall see....

Three straight quarters of +3% GDP^[1] -- something that liberals have been insisting for the past 8 years was no longer possible in today's world market (and the day after Trump was elected liberal economic guru Paul Krugman called his victory "the mother of all adverse effects," predicting "a global recession, with no end in sight" as a result).

The unemployment rate is at 4.1% -- which is a 17-year low. And the last time I checked new unemployment claims are at their lowest in 43 years! Even CNN is admitting that Hispanic unemployment at an all-time low (4.7%) under Trump. At the end of last month Goldman Sachs predicted that the unemployment rate will drop to 3.7% by end-2018 and 3.5% by end-2019 leading their widely respected chief economist Jan Hatzius^[2] to declare, "Such a scenario would take the U.S. labor market into territory almost never seen outside of a major wartime mobilization."








1. And the New York Federal Reserve Bank is predicting that next quarter the GDP will be at 3.8% -- far outstripping the anemic average-annual GDP growth rate of 1.5% during Obama’s term as president.

2. he's won the Lawrence R. Klein Award for the most accurate U.S. economic forecast twice in the past four years.