Occam, Trump, and Russia

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6796
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Jadagul » 12 Jun 2018, 00:48

Eric the .5b wrote:
11 Jun 2018, 23:55
Jadagul wrote:
11 Jun 2018, 21:15
Honestly, the fact that so many people think Trump's corruption is normal is probably more threatening than his actual corruption. The damage his corruption is doing is in making that look normal. It's not; it hasn't been in decades; and it's both important to make it abnormal, and to make people believe that it's unusual.
For at least half of Trump supporters, they don't believe the corruption. For the rest, I think they go into straight cognitive dissonance on the matter. It certainly won't be Team Blue that gets them out of it.

I'm not sure that Trump makes anything look normal except to his own supporters. Everybody else, including his ex-supporters, are horrified.

If he's gone after one term, I think his lasting damage will be minimal. At this point, I'd put better odds on Trump alienating his own base, segment by segment, than on the Blues managing to beat him.
I think a lot of Trump's base support comes from people who assume that all politicians are on the take, and Trump is just more honest about it. In the same way that they think everyone is racist, and Trump just isn't afraid to speak his mind.

And that's bad. I don't know how to fix it, but it's bad.

One way my politics have changed over the past couple years is that I increasingly think it's really important to crack down on white-collar crime. Like, certainly, there's white-collar crime that shouldn't be illegal at all, and I don't want to crack down on that. But I increasingly think it's important that we enforce regulations seriously, and treat it as a serious thing when major corporations violate the law. Because otherwise makes people feel like laws don't apply to corporations, or, sometimes, rich people. And that's pretty corrosive to legal legitimacy.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17926
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 12 Jun 2018, 00:55

Jadagul wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 00:48
Eric the .5b wrote:
11 Jun 2018, 23:55
Jadagul wrote:
11 Jun 2018, 21:15
Honestly, the fact that so many people think Trump's corruption is normal is probably more threatening than his actual corruption. The damage his corruption is doing is in making that look normal. It's not; it hasn't been in decades; and it's both important to make it abnormal, and to make people believe that it's unusual.
For at least half of Trump supporters, they don't believe the corruption. For the rest, I think they go into straight cognitive dissonance on the matter. It certainly won't be Team Blue that gets them out of it.

I'm not sure that Trump makes anything look normal except to his own supporters. Everybody else, including his ex-supporters, are horrified.

If he's gone after one term, I think his lasting damage will be minimal. At this point, I'd put better odds on Trump alienating his own base, segment by segment, than on the Blues managing to beat him.
I think a lot of Trump's base support comes from people who assume that all politicians are on the take, and Trump is just more honest about it. In the same way that they think everyone is racist, and Trump just isn't afraid to speak his mind.

And that's bad. I don't know how to fix it, but it's bad.

One way my politics have changed over the past couple years is that I increasingly think it's really important to crack down on white-collar crime. Like, certainly, there's white-collar crime that shouldn't be illegal at all, and I don't want to crack down on that. But I increasingly think it's important that we enforce regulations seriously, and treat it as a serious thing when major corporations violate the law. Because otherwise makes people feel like laws don't apply to corporations, or, sometimes, rich people. And that's pretty corrosive to legal legitimacy.
There is a depressing paucity of criminal CEOs in prison.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26402
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2018, 01:00

Jadagul wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 00:48
I think a lot of Trump's base support comes from people who assume that all politicians are on the take, and Trump is just more honest about it.
Yep. And, honestly, it's probably half true. You can't tell me that campaign contributions don't involve some unsavory relationships, but that's different from the personal enrichment that Trump is pursuing. And anybody who's been heavily involved in US foreign policy has some disturbingly cozy relationships with people in the Middle East (including people who publicly insist that they all hate each other, while privately liking a lot of the same things about US policy), but their strings probably get pulled by the US at least some of the time, whereas Trump seems desperate to get Moscow to like him.

The closest analogue to Trump's desire to please Russia (whether due to bribery, blackmail, or a mancrush on Alpha Male Vladimir) may be Israel, where it really does seem like US politicians from both parties (including Trump) are desperate to prove how pro-Israel they are. Even there, though, they're doing it in response to the perceived desires of US factions, not to show Bibi how solid they are.
Jadagul wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 00:48
One way my politics have changed over the past couple years is that I increasingly think it's really important to crack down on white-collar crime. Like, certainly, there's white-collar crime that shouldn't be illegal at all, and I don't want to crack down on that. But I increasingly think it's important that we enforce regulations seriously, and treat it as a serious thing when major corporations violate the law. Because otherwise makes people feel like laws don't apply to corporations, or, sometimes, rich people. And that's pretty corrosive to legal legitimacy.
I'm not saying this as a "Gotcha!" but I do wonder how certain threads from back in the day would play out if we all revisited those issues with our current viewpoints.

But I'm honestly not proposing to revisit those threads because even if we have, in fact, shifted our views, when we revisit what we said there'd be a strong temptation to approach it as "No, I wasn't actually saying [whatever it sure looks like we were saying], I was just saying [something half-way between our current views and what we actually said back then]" instead of "Crap, I was wrong back then."
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6796
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Jadagul » 12 Jun 2018, 01:08

thoreau wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 01:00
But I'm honestly not proposing to revisit those threads because even if we have, in fact, shifted our views, when we revisit what we said there'd be a strong temptation to approach it as "No, I wasn't actually saying [whatever it sure looks like we were saying], I was just saying [something half-way between our current views and what we actually said back then]" instead of "Crap, I was wrong back then."
I try to be good about that, but it's hard. It helps to keep a running list of "things I've changed my mind on." This is one of them. (Others in the realm of politics include my change to be more pro-choice in the course of writing an anti-abortion argument when I was seventeen; being convinced by a Charles Taylor essay that a Nozickian approach to individual rights-as-side-constraints wasn't really coherent in my freshman year of college; and becoming substantially more dovish and skeptical of the national security establishment in the wake of the Iraq invasion, which I unfortunately supported).

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14616
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Aresen » 12 Jun 2018, 01:16

Eric the .5b wrote:
11 Jun 2018, 23:55
Jadagul wrote:
11 Jun 2018, 21:15
Honestly, the fact that so many people think Trump's corruption is normal is probably more threatening than his actual corruption. The damage his corruption is doing is in making that look normal. It's not; it hasn't been in decades; and it's both important to make it abnormal, and to make people believe that it's unusual.
For at least half of Trump supporters, they don't believe the corruption. For the rest, I think they go into straight cognitive dissonance on the matter. It certainly won't be Team Blue that gets them out of it.

I'm not sure that Trump makes anything look normal except to his own supporters. Everybody else, including his ex-supporters, are horrified.
I wish he had more ex-supporters. Unfortunately, his bottom 'favorable' number hovers around 35- 38%. (Which is suspiciously close to the proportion of the population that describe themselves as young earth creationists.)
If he's gone after one term, I think his lasting damage will be minimal. At this point, I'd put better odds on Trump alienating his own base, segment by segment, than on the Blues managing to beat him.
I thought things would get better after Nixon was gone. And Ford and Carter both seemed like basically decent people, so I thought things were getting better. Then the slide backwards started.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12424
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Eric the .5b » 12 Jun 2018, 04:17

Jadagul wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 00:48
I think a lot of Trump's base support comes from people who assume that all politicians are on the take, and Trump is just more honest about it. In the same way that they think everyone is racist, and Trump just isn't afraid to speak his mind.

And that's bad. I don't know how to fix it, but it's bad.
*shrug* In that case, you're not talking about the damage Trump has done, but what Trump is a symptom of.

I can't help noticing that the only alternative the public seems to have to the cynical take is uncritical support of idealized versions of the politicians they're in favor of. Even some of Trump's supporters are in that mode. Whatever narrative works to let them back the people they want to back.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6796
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Jadagul » 12 Jun 2018, 04:24

Eric the .5b wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 04:17
Jadagul wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 00:48
I think a lot of Trump's base support comes from people who assume that all politicians are on the take, and Trump is just more honest about it. In the same way that they think everyone is racist, and Trump just isn't afraid to speak his mind.

And that's bad. I don't know how to fix it, but it's bad.
*shrug* In that case, you're not talking about the damage Trump has done, but what Trump is a symptom of.

I can't help noticing that the only alternative the public seems to have to the cynical take is uncritical support of idealized versions of the politicians they're in favor of. Even some of Trump's supporters are in that mode. Whatever narrative works to let them back the people they want to back.
I think that Trump getting away with it reinforces the impression that this is normal and acceptable. I think having him penalized for it reinforces the idea that this behavior isn't acceptable. We should find a way to not accept it.

This won't convince people who think that literally all politicians are on the take, and we're just out to get Trump for some reason. But on the margin it should make more people think this isn't common or condoned behavior, if the people who engage in it suffer and get punished for it, visibly. So I think it's important to do that.

(I mean, I don't care if Trump actually suffers. He can live a long and happy life, for all I care, as long as he lives a long and happy life of being ostracized and mocked and viewed as a cautionary tale of hubris and failure).

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2018, 09:47

I’m legit about 50/50 jadagulian and warrenian on how much if any actual damage trump has done. I find it difficult to sort facts from tone, and I will say major media being full on attack mode doesn’t help draw distinctions. There is a bunch of stuff like “he said those minorities are animals! Racist!” Uh yeah you just gave him 10x the credibility next time you start screaming about the new worst thing that may actually be bad. My overall sense is his approach to diplomacy is long term toxic to established relationships but also it is true that many of these players are simply used to saying whatever they want about US policy and never hearing boo back. It is true that the EU abandoned NATO. It is true that they engage is a wider range of protectionism and it is true the status quo for decades has been we don’t say anything about that stuff in public.

He’s a baby and he says things in trolling or earnest about using federal power against the press that should not be said. He plays footsie with alt right.

I’m not sure how much actual corruption I’ve seen. Hard evidence of such while in office would for sure move my views.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24618
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Warren » 12 Jun 2018, 10:09

Allow me to revise and extend my remarks.
What concerns me most about all the teeth gnashing over Russia is what always concerns me about Sports Bar politics. The scandal that we need is not the scandal he deserves. It's a distraction that diverts attention from the things we should be paying attention to. Positing that Trump is playing 11 dimensional chess is a surprisingly fun game. If you grant him enough cunning you can imagine that Trump is the one behind the whole Russian investigation.

And here's another thing that concerns me. I won't be sorry to see Trump go, though I think it's madness to believe he can be forced out before the end of his first term, but then what? Who comes next? In the best of all possible worlds who would actually be better? If you're like my father, anyone is better because what matters is that the President is seen to be presidential and is respected in the world. But if you're like me and believe that what matters is the soundness of the economy, peace, and minimizing the number and severity of interactions between people and their government, everyone on the list is worse.
The value of peer review lies substantially in the nature of one's peers. - that Ridgely guy

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23104
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2018, 10:23

Anyone that is status quo red/blue and ends child separation policy is an improvement.
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 09:47
It is true that the EU abandoned NATO. It is true that they engage is a wider range of protectionism and it is true the status quo for decades has been we don’t say anything about that stuff in public.
Not saying that stuff in public != not saying it at all. I would also note that the last two admins also pressed the Europeans on military spending wrt NATO. The average tariff on imports to the EU is the same as they are for the US. Does the EU have protectionism in some sectors? Yes, but so do we. It would be better if both sides eliminated them.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14616
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Aresen » 12 Jun 2018, 10:44

Mo wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 10:23
Does the EU have protectionism in some sectors? Yes, but so do we. It would be better if both sides eliminated them.
Exactly. Trump has fixated on Canada's 'Supply Management System' for agricultural products and ramped the rhetoric on it up to 11. I hate the system, which caters to and enriches a tiny, but politically powerful, minority. (Does that sound familiar to Americans?) A few have tried to quietly cut it back, but after Trump's tirade, it is political suicide for any Canadian politician to suggest modification.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26402
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2018, 10:45


JasonL wrote:There is a bunch of stuff like “he said those minorities are animals! Racist!” Uh yeah you just gave him 10x the credibility next time you start screaming about the new worst thing that may actually be bad.
This. Liberals have an uncanny knack for turning race cards into jagged tools for slitting the wrists of their own credibility.
I’m not sure how much actual corruption I’ve seen. Hard evidence of such while in office would for sure move my views.
China makes a couple of moves that are favorable to his and Ivanka's business interests and suddenly Canada is the trade war adversary. That alone would be impeachable if we had a Congress with any sort of economic sense.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17926
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 12 Jun 2018, 10:55

Aresen wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 10:44
Mo wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 10:23
Does the EU have protectionism in some sectors? Yes, but so do we. It would be better if both sides eliminated them.
Exactly. Trump has fixated on Canada's 'Supply Management System' for agricultural products and ramped the rhetoric on it up to 11. I hate the system, which caters to and enriches a tiny, but politically powerful, minority. (Does that sound familiar to Americans?) A few have tried to quietly cut it back, but after Trump's tirade, it is political suicide for any Canadian politician to suggest modification.
True in France, too. If there's only one class of goods a nation is most likely to "protect," it's agriculture.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23104
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2018, 10:59

The Canadian dairy stuff is ridiculous. But is just as ridiculous, possibly less, as American sugar policy.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2018, 11:07

China makes a couple of moves that are favorable to his and Ivanka's business interests and suddenly Canada is the trade war adversary. That alone would be impeachable if we had a Congress with any sort of economic sense.
This is where you lose me. This would not be impeachable in any place where high crimes and misdemeanors required anything other than presumption of guilt. He has shifted several times on China, shifted several times on Russia and his approach to all public proclamations is to either (generously) wildly swing messaging on who has favor for strategic advantage or (unfavorably) fall in love with the last person he talked to because hes stupid. He approaches all issues like that so I don't see how you can get to impeachable corruption on China policy.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26402
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2018, 11:22

JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 11:07
China makes a couple of moves that are favorable to his and Ivanka's business interests and suddenly Canada is the trade war adversary. That alone would be impeachable if we had a Congress with any sort of economic sense.
This is where you lose me. This would not be impeachable in any place where high crimes and misdemeanors required anything other than presumption of guilt. He has shifted several times on China, shifted several times on Russia and his approach to all public proclamations is to either (generously) wildly swing messaging on who has favor for strategic advantage or (unfavorably) fall in love with the last person he talked to because hes stupid. He approaches all issues like that so I don't see how you can get to impeachable corruption on China policy.
Policy pivots in return for personal business favors? Sounds like the definition of bribery.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2018, 11:35

You can't show A in return for B. You can show A after B where B have had more than one set of reasoning behind it as well.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26402
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2018, 11:41

I agree that it wouldn't be enough to deprive a man of liberty in a court of law. If a criminal prosecutor went after him I'd be right there with you.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, removal from office does not constitute a loss of liberty, and we all know damn well that Trump puts personal profit before national policy.

How about this plausible hypothetical: Trump requests lists of diplomats who stay at his hotels. Countries that book a lot of stays at his hotels get better treatment than those that don't. Somebody testifies that the patter is well known and diplomats have whispered with each other about taking advantage of it. Impeach?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26402
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2018, 11:46

Suppose that tomorrow some country approves a real estate deal that his sons have been working on, and the next day he announces a reduction in tariffs or some other favorable policy move. If we don't punish that, we're setting ourselves up for a godawful precedent.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16085
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by lunchstealer » 12 Jun 2018, 11:55

thoreau wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 11:22
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 11:07
China makes a couple of moves that are favorable to his and Ivanka's business interests and suddenly Canada is the trade war adversary. That alone would be impeachable if we had a Congress with any sort of economic sense.
This is where you lose me. This would not be impeachable in any place where high crimes and misdemeanors required anything other than presumption of guilt. He has shifted several times on China, shifted several times on Russia and his approach to all public proclamations is to either (generously) wildly swing messaging on who has favor for strategic advantage or (unfavorably) fall in love with the last person he talked to because hes stupid. He approaches all issues like that so I don't see how you can get to impeachable corruption on China policy.
Policy pivots in return for personal business favors? Sounds like the definition of bribery.
Did he get concessions about his brands, or about IP in general? The latter has been an American goal for decades.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2018, 12:21

Your hypothetical is too hypothetical. What does better treatment mean and we are the presume there aren’t any other variables that could explain that treatment? That’s a lot to swallow.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26402
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2018, 12:49

On one level you're right, my example is missing crucial details, details that could help us distinguish shades of gray. Seen from that angle, there's nothing to even discuss punishing.

Seen from another angle, a leader has a duty to keep his personal affairs far away from the grayer areas of policy. There should never even be a question about whether the head of government is deriving personal benefit from a trade negotiation. There should be such strict walls between these things that we never have to figure out how gray is too gray. Benefit of the doubt works best when somebody is so far away from the impermissible lines that even in the worst case scenario they'd still be clearly on the right side.

Trump hasn't structured his affairs to adhere to anything remotely resembling that duty. His daughter and son-in-law are involved in his administration but also still involved in personal businesses that involve foreign and domestic entanglements. His sons are running a business that involves a hotel leasing federal land just down the street from the White House. This is the sort of thing that you'd expect in Pakistan, not the US.

Papa Bush had long ago walked away from his CIA fron...I mean, his oil business. Obama didn't have a side business writing law textbooks and giving government posts to law professors who assigned them. Bush Jr. didn't have the foggiest clue what sorts of financial schemes his brothers were currently involved in. (Nor did he have the foggiest clue about anything else, but that's another matter.) Bill Clinton's wife had long ago given up on losing money in Arkansas land deals. Reagan wasn't investing in Hollywood projects and lambasting governors whose states didn't cough up enough subsidy for film projects. Jimmy Carter had walked away from Big Nuts. And so forth.

So if this is about whether Trump has provably crossed a specific, well-defined line defined in law, hell, I don't know, and I don't care. This isn't about a criminal case that could result in loss of rights because this isn't about rights. It's about duty. He assumed the office, and that means assuming a duty, and staying very far away from anything that even looks like a conflict of interest.

He has a duty to keep his personal business as far as humanly possible from affairs of state. He hasn't. He spends every day in gray areas that could easily cross the line into bribery. That's reason enough to remove him from office. A private citizen has rights, but a leader has duties.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23104
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2018, 13:03

I'm more thoreau-ian on this. There's a reason why presidents divest assets of this sort. Jimmy Carter sold his fucking peanut farm. Avoiding the appearance of corruption is important for norms. Particularly since the SCOTUS has set the bar for corruption almost impossibly high.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2018, 13:04

So appearance of impropriety is directly an impeachment the end.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23104
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2018, 13:08

Depends how egregious the impropriety is. Lifting sanctions on a state owned bank following granting of specific trademarks and investment in properties owned by the president hits the bar, while it wouldn't lead to jail time outside of a "Let's do crime" email. Also, the specifics here are covered in the constitution:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests