I'm looking for DJT to work his magic

I don't know whether people find this week's events undigestible or just boring (24 hour news coverage could make anything boring).

A thumbnail:  DJT tells Comey he hopes the Flynn thing wraps up quickly.  Comey testifies that no one in the DJT admin has sought suspension of any investigation into it.  DJT fires Comey rudely or incompetently.  Comey appears to have surrogates leak parts of a memo expressing DJT's hope about the Flynn investigation.  Media predictably misunderstand that to be a demand that Comey cease the investigation and assert that Comey's dismissal must have been calculated to end an investigation.

Asst. FBI Dir. appoints Mueller as special counsel on the matter, and media ninnies have a tough time not speculating about impeachment.  "Obstruction of justice" is part of that Tourrette's as well, even though no criminal act has been identified.

As I understand this sort of investigation, it's exclusive and confidential.  This means that a) those identified are obligated to suspend discovery production to any other (congressional) investigators, and b) the result's of Mueller's efforts are supposed to remain confidential until he issues a report on his conclusions.  This starves impeachment efforts of new supporting material.


Here's the magic I'm looking for.  While dems are channelling their energy into breathlessly explaining this non-scandal to one another, I want DJT to continue to move his substantive agenda.  I want to see something helpful on taxes and some more attention to appointments, as well as flushing the ACA.

This may require DJT to hand congressional repubs coherent explanations about why they don't need to perform a "McCain" and pre-emptively treat DJT as the enemy.  Part of coherence would be not having the exec and his staff generating controversy by speaking off the cuff to press.
«1

Comments

  • I wish you luck in your search, Matt.


    Part of coherence would be not having the exec and his staff generating controversy by speaking off the cuff to press.

    This is a bit of a stumbling block.

  • Structurally, this Mueller thing may actually diffuse the bomb amongst politically sober people.

    There is some level at which I don't grok DJT, but I've also observed that straight predictions/expectations may not be probative.  I do think I have some understanding of repubs and the tendency amongst some of them toward McCainism.
  • His support within the GOP is questionable because they question whether or not Trump is really a Republican.

    Whether or not he's really a conservative is a different question. The lack of gratitude from the party for Gorsuch pisses me off though.
  • I don't think they owe him gratitude for Gorsuch.  It was part of a promise DJT made prior to election.  That DJT could keep a promise like that  gave him some political capital within the party that might explain why congressional repubs haven't bolted already.

    Party support is tentative because a rational person isn't going to give unreserved allegiance to an erratic person.  Even when the exec is a party builder, congressional repubs don't give execs unreserved loyalty and obedience.  RWR had congressional repub opposition.  DJT isn't an unambiguous repub party builder, though repubs benefitted from DJT's personal...er...charisma.
  • There is no way that this political/media circus was not going to happen.

    Keep in mind that we here are in a tiny elite of the general population that both cares about what's going on in Washington AND makes a genuine effort to ferret out the truth of things, even when we don't like where that leads us.

    MOST of America isn't even paying attention and all the sound and fury of the State Media and the Political Class really doesn't signify anything to them because beyond a certain point it all turns into white noise.

    More importantly, it's inoculating him.

    If you spend every waking moment demonizing someone and after a year he still hasn't sprouted horns and a tail, people are going to stop paying attention to you.



    In the meantime, the administration is getting a lot done under the radar.
    And the economy...
    Well, the reason I bought a grader is because I literally couldn't rent a bulldozer ANYWHERE within a hundred miles. And that's not the only type of equipment that's scarce.


    I'm expecting the REAL battle to be fought this fall, at which point Trump's opposition is going to discover that they have expended a tremendous amount of ammo to little effect and that Trump has managed to get a shitload more of his agenda done than they expected him to because most of it wasn't big and flashy.


    Finally, we are not yet in the 2018 Political season.

    This fall, we will be.

    Even if you have a question in your mind about whether Trump is thinking about that; you can bet your ass that Bannon is.
  • nbody said:

    That DJT could keep a promise like that  gave him some political capital within the party that might explain why congressional repubs haven't bolted already.

    This is what I meant, but I don't think that they gave him as much capital as he deserved for the nomination given how important it was. In return, he owes the GOP leadership for invoking the nuclear option to get his nomination through. It was a risky strategy by MM to refuse to consider any Obama nominee until after the election.
  • Seabird said:

    In return, he owes the GOP leadership for invoking the nuclear option to get his nomination through.




    I don't see DJT owing anyone on that, and his sole misstep was to state an opinion on a matter of senate mechanics.

    MM's strategy wasn't risky, but it required the fortitude to stick with it while people pretended that it would be a problem not to hold a hearing.

    Garland wasn't a good nominee. If HRC won, it would be Garland or another bad nominee. There was no upside to yielding to dems or holding a hearing.
  • I don't agree that MM's political calculus wasn't risky. As much as you disliked Garland, there could have been worse picks. Had Trump not won (and very few thought he would), Hillary would have been free to nominate someone far more extreme.

    Typically, presidential victories come with coattails for congressional candidates of the same party. Had she won, the Senate might look different today.
  • Seabird said:

    Had Trump not won (and very few thought he would), Hillary would have been free to nominate someone far more extreme.




    More extremely what?



    There was a media line that Garland was moderate, liberal on some matters and conservative on others. The planted axiom in that line was false though; it assumed "conservatism" from siding with the government against criminal defendants, the very opposite of Scalia.


    Worse, Garland was smart and might have written opinions more coherent and longer lasting than some the drivel penned by Breyer's or Sotomayor's people.
  • edited May 18
    I don't possess any real legal understanding at a technical level (I can red-line business contracts - that's about it), so I can't offer an analysis on his ideological qualities as they pertain to his judicial judgement. To that end, I confess that I'm at the mercy of others, including the same GOP who voted to confirm him to his seat on the DC circuit years earlier. If the conceit that he was a moderate liberal was a media line only, then they seem to have sourced a few republicans for some of their material.

    *sigh*

    I seem to be finding myself in a position of someone who supported Garland's nomination. I did not. I am of the belief that this was a precedent set by Biden and that the dems can go cry in their Cheerios about it. That said, the media did a pretty good job of portraying him as moderate with or without the GOP's help (wittingly or un). That made it a political issue and one that I found risky. That's the point I was trying to make.

    Had Clinton swept into office, she probably wouldn't have renominated Garland and could have instead selected a candidate far more openly liberal. Perhaps as a thank you to all of the former Sanders supporters who might have pulled the lever for her in the general.
  • Seabird said:

    I don't possess any real legal understanding at a technical level (I can red-line business contracts - that's about it), so I can't offer an analysis on his ideological qualities as they pertain to his judicial judgement. To that end, I confess that I'm at the mercy of others, including the same GOP who voted to confirm him to his seat on the DC circuit years earlier. If the conceit that he was a moderate liberal was a media line only, then they seem to have sourced a few republicans for some of their material.




    Repub votes aren't a certificate that a person isn't a lefty nut. The repub standard has generally been that an exec is entitled to his nominees. Until MM, they weren't playing the same game as the dems.

    People use "liberal and conservative" to describe all sorts of different axes, and some of those are pretty stupid.

    If you write for the NYT, you think letting police disregard defendant rights is "conservative", then consider it a mystery that Scalia is a champion of the rights of criminal defendants. Yet, it is no mystery unless one is a thoughtless orthodox lib observing gross cultural trends and assuming that police represent "Law&Order" and that it is therefore reflective of conservatism to find in favor of the state. It just isn't a thoughtful analysis.

    The more useful axis for me is whether a justice refers to the COTUS when a constitutional issue arises. Breyer and Ginsberg are pleasant and smart people, but they often write as if the COTUS weren't pertinent to what they do. Breyer has said explicitly that he reads a lot and brings all sorts of influences to his decisions.

    That's not a correct approach for someone tasked with deciding constitutional controversies. Garland was from the same strain of "Let's see how my ideas of public policy square with constitional case law" jurisprudence. That doesn't make him a bad fellow, but it does make him no better than Breyer or Ginsberg as a Sup Ct justice.

    When you are redlining a contract and you see a capitalized term, "Effective Date" for example, do you refer to the contract itself to determine the defined Effective Date? Breyer would muse about the arbitrary nature of a day, the tradition in many cultures that lets one do it "tomorrow", and whether all the parties really felt in their hearts that the same day was effective.

    That's only marginally hyperbolic.
  • edited May 18
    I see your point. When redlining I look for words and phrases like "reasonable" and "generally acceptable". Conditions and requirements that aren't specifically defined and quantifiable. And I understand how in federal jurisprudence, the COTUS should be the benchmark for quantifying specifics in legal disputes. I'm just not not steeped in enough case law to know more than what I've been told by people who are elected to represent me and who also belong to the same political party that I do.
  • Seabird said:

    I'm just not not steeped in enough case law to know more than what I've been told by people who are elected to represent me and who also belong to the same political party that I do.

    Not knowing the case law is normal.

    The tragedy is that people who know less about it than you are opinion leaders for lots of people.
  • edited May 18
    That kind of goes to my original point, though. It's politically risky to approve of a guy at one point (DC circuit court), and then disapprove him at another (SCOTUS). More so when the reason is purely a political calculus during a time when voters are more fed up with politics for the sake of politics than usual.

    People will *always* say that they're fed up with politics as usual, but we only rarely see voters take concrete action over it. Like Ross Perot winning 20% of the pop vote, or... Donald Trump winning the whole shooting match.

    It's been an odd enough 18 months to make me question the old rules and behaviors.
  • If you substitute "Yankees & Red Sox" for "Republican & Democrat" their behavior becomes less mysterious
  • MC Escher said:

    If you substitute "Yankees & Red Sox" for "Republican & Democrat" their behavior becomes less mysterious

    In this analogy, is DJT the fan in a skybox who drinks too much and waves his pecker at the camera?
  • No, that would be me.
  • DJT is the overweight middle aged "bro" with his face and chest painted and flipping the bird at the camera.
  • edited May 19
    Seabird said:

    DJT is the overweight middle aged "bro" with his face and chest painted and flipping the bird at the camera.

    NPR was unbearable on the way home, so I listened to Michael Medved.  I don't care for Medved.

    Someone called in who sounded like his schooling stopped at high school; he could have driven a truck or been a union lawyer.  His observation: "Lemme tell sumthin'.  You're sayin he can't do anything right, but Trump sounds more like me than you, and I'm backin' 'im!  Wadu think a dat!"

    This man was an average working person, you know, an idiot.  These people love DJT.
  • I had to reject the phrase "to the Customer's entire satisfaction" in a contract today.
  • Zuk - That's why I have XM/Sirius. Worth the money.

    Dave - OMG, BTDT!
  • I've spent the last week working on contract amendments.

    The customer is French Canadian. Technically they're only a prospect since they haven't signed the deal yet.

    But we stand to make about a billion dollars in the next ten years on the deal, so it's worth it.
  • dgm said:

    I've spent the last week working on contract amendments.


    So many people look at contracts minimally, as being about what they hope or promise to do, instead of using them to their fullest potential by defining the consequences for when something goes wrong to some appropriate degree of precision, so that no one is surprised by those consequences, i.e. the expenses they'll have to bear if/when something goes wrong.
  • nbody said:

    Part of coherence would be not having the exec and his staff generating controversy by speaking off the cuff to press.

    I'm just now starting to get a sense of just how strongly the deranged journalism re: Trump is being encouraged by Trump.  This meeting where he "leaked highly classified information" as reported by the Washington Post, appears to have been a completely unnecessary meeting.  As far as I can tell the only reason for Trump to have held this meeting was to stoke the insanity in the media re: "Russian connections!"  When the Washington Post reports that he leaked highly classified information, and White house personnel correct them, Trump almost immediately undermines that reassurance.  Its getting harder and harder for me to doubt Eric's assessment of Trump.

    "This may require DJT to hand congressional repubs coherent explanations about why they don't need to perform a "McCain" and pre-emptively treat DJT as the enemy."

    Can he do that without undermining his efforts to drive the Democrats crazy?  In private meetings, or through surrogates?
  • That remains to be seen.
  • nbody said:

    Seabird said:

    NPR was unbearable on the way home, 

    The past three days have been nothing but - IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!  One NPR analyst wisely commented that President Trump eats horribly and is in terrible health so he probably won't last very long anyway.
  • Slap said:




    I think it is possible to feed the inertia of derangement amongst dems without spooking everyone else.

    nbody said:

    Seabird said:

    NPR was unbearable on the way home, 

    The past three days have been nothing but - IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!  One NPR analyst wisely commented that President Trump eats horribly and is in terrible health so he probably won't last very long anyway.



    I can't deny the entertainment value of watching people drunk on their own baseless antipathy.
  • edited May 19
    nbody said:

    I can't deny the entertainment value of watching people drunk on their own baseless antipathy.


    Monkey pushes a button, monkey gets a peanut. As sly as they may think they are, they have been trained to engage in a  predictable cycle of behavior.

    Spend enough time around anything that constantly makes the same cyclical noise and eventually you won't even hear it.
  •   One NPR analyst wisely commented that President Trump eats horribly and is in terrible health so he probably won't last very long anyway.

    The two scoops theory.

    Trump has been to media (website clicks, newspaper subs) what Obama was to gun sales. After an eight year slumber journalism is woke af.
  • I don't know if "journalism" is quite the right the term, perhaps "media" would be better.  But all the same, point taken.
Sign In or Register to comment.