Sure, all I'm pointing to is the common psychological phenomenon of fuelling a moralizing attitude with energy garnered from an emotional response to knowledge of a reality that undercuts the rationale for that very attitude. It's not just Trump supporters that do that either. This just seems to be a good example of it.

This is relevant to what I mean. And worth watching on its own terms anyhow. (Have a look around the fifteen to twenty-five minute mark when he talks about Rumsfeld and unknown knowns—"What we don't know that we know" etc. What Trump supporters know but "don't know" that they know is that he's guilty. And it's the virtual operation of that knowledge that paradoxically fuels their indignancy at his unfair treatment [what they directly "know"].) So I claim anyhow...*sniffle* and so on, and so on...

I claim anyhow...*sniffle* and so on, and — Baden

Drrrree-yala-tea. Sniff.

And Rosenstein signed off on the FBI raid.

I don't think it's unfair to say that Mueller and team know quite a bit more than we, the public. — Maw

I know Maw, I was just wondering how lawyer/client privilege would ever stand sacred as it is supposed to be.

If by "sacred" you mean something like "inviolable", then it's not and never has been, and honestly shouldn't be. There is a high burden of justification needed, which was clearly met given that a magistrate judge and the Rosentein signed off on it.

Useful opinion piece in the NYTimes.

The country is living through an astonishing story without a full sense of what that story is. But as the public waits to discover who on the Trump team knew what and when they knew it, Mr. Mueller has been telling another story, about “draining the swamp.” And how that story plays out stands to have a major effect on how our politics moves forward after the investigation is complete.

The themes of corruption and white-collar malfeasance link the cases of those caught up in the special counsel’s inquiry. Their indictments shed light on the culture of influence peddling and less-than-savory financial transactions that Mr. Trump promised to dismantle if elected president. (He has done the opposite.)

also this pretty scathing analysis in the Daily Beast.

[Delete] @Baden

I like his reaction to the most recent Syria atrocities. Even the Tweets. Notwithstanding that following that up with real action will be the important thing.

The ‘Syria reaction’ was going OK up until Trump woke up and decided to tell the Russians he was going to fire some really ‘new, smart’ missiles - by tweet. Not that this would ever constitute ‘telegraphing your intentions’, or anything of the kind. But it must be trying for the minders who have been so carefully trying to corral the Presidential mind-stream.

It’s just like everybody wakes up every morning and does whatever is right in front of them,” said one West Wing aide... “Oh, my God, Trump Tower is on fire. Oh, my God, they raided Michael Cohen’s office. Oh, my God, we’re going to bomb Syria. Whatever is there is what people respond to, and there is no proactive strategic thinking.” — Washington Post

Just one damn thing after another. I’m reminded of the classic quote from the book about the last days of Enron. ‘It’s like your hair’s on fire, and the only thing you have to put it out with is a hammer’.

Senior U.S. officials describe a president who is operating largely on impulse, with little patience for the advice of his top aides. “A decision or statement is made by the president, and then the principals — Mattis or Pompeo or Kelly — come in and tell him we can’t do it,” said one senior administration official. “When that fails, we reverse-engineer a policy process to match whatever the president said.”

That approach appeals to the core vote. He is the brave soldier at the frontier fighting against the self-serving hypocrisy of federalism. It's the Civil War brought up to date and transferred to the Oval Office.

Can someone send this to Trump, please?

Food for thought. Assad would have to be some kind of wildly crazy person to use chemical weapons whilst he is winning the war. Who would imagine that the despotic ruler of a country torn apart by violent fanaticism and tribal hatred could behave so immoderately?

There's no law that prevents leaders from doing crazy despicable things against their own interest, but still motive is a sufficiently good pointer towards possible guilt that police often use it as a 'lead'.

Perhaps he hated someone so much that he could gas them without caring who else got gassed in the process. No more devious motive needed for explanation, surely? As to means, it seems that he had some gas. As far as opportunity goes, Assad and his buddies are right there in Syria.

As to winning the war, someone should point out to Assad that he has nearly won and that after he has finally won everyone will settle down nicely and no more violence or gassing will be necessary. Syrians will sit outside coffee shops reading the Arabic edition of The Guardian and playing Angry Birds on their smartphones. Perhaps we could give that job to Blair?

‘‘President cavorts with porn actor, pays hush money, lies about it on TV, is caught out.’

Electorate: ‘So, what’s the problem?’

The world really needs America to be better than this.

I think they are... If it happened to Old Bill who was quite popular, it can surely happen to the scandal sluice box that is President Trump (though I think Trump will proclaim glorious resignation).

What actually happened to Clinton again? (quasi-impeachment?)

In any case, I've been saying it all along: a circus can only go on for so long before it becomes nauseating and dark... One of these hooks will catch...

What actually happened to Clinton again? (quasi-impeachment?) — VagabondSpectre

Impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction, acquitted by the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:

• the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
• prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
• prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
• his attempts to tamper with witnesses

Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:

• encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
• encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
• concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
• attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
• permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
• attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
• making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

Leave it to the old-school upper-house to protect a man's right to lie about sex :D

"why I NEVER!".

I think the chief prosecutor had it right: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."

There shouldn't be different rules for the President (same for obstruction).

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:

the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
his attempts to tamper with witnesses


Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:

encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses — Michael

Well it's not like he's lied under oath... Yet... If Mueller actually subpoenas Trump it wouldn't be surprising to see him talk his way into trouble. I'm not sure on what basis this alleged subpoena would get stamped though (the scope of Mueller's investigation seems very broad). The firing of Comey amidst the Russian investigations or the somehow related Stormy storm? Time will tell...

I think the chief prosecutor had it right: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."

There shouldn't be different rules for the President. — Michael

I can see the argument for making an exception. Ousting a president because he's not principled enough to obey the oath when only his reputation is at stake. At the same time, setting any precedent that lying under oath, especially the president, is sometimes O.K seems to grease an obvious slope. The president lying under oath seems to controvert the American constitutional principal of self-governance and transparent democracy

Ousting a president because he's not principled enough to obey the oath when only his reputation is at stake. — VagabondSpectre

It's not about ousting a President for not being principled; it's about ousting a President for committing a crime. Perjury, and particularly obstruction, are serious charges.

Well it's not like he's lied under oath... Yet... If Mueller actually subpoenas Trump it wouldn't be surprising to see him talk his way into trouble. I'm not sure on what basis this alleged subpoena would get stamped though (the scope of Mueller's investigation seems very broad). The firing of Comey amidst the Russian investigations? — VagabondSpectre

I'm just talking about Clinton's impeachment.

It's not about ousting a President for not being principled; it's about ousting a President for committing a crime. Perjury, and particularly obstruction, are serious charges. — Michael

I agree, but some purgers are worse than others. Give and inch of rope to the white house and they'll instantly stretch it into a mile though. Obstruction charges are more serious in general (purgery IS a kind of obstruction i suppose), but here too some obstructions are worse than others. The main grievance I would have is that the leader of America should be the first person held to the high standards of the law, not the exception. It was founded on the rejection of unequal justice, and it's not hard to see that setting the precedent that the president can lie under oath (or obstruct justice) in some situations is dangerous to say the least.

I'm just talking about Clinton's impeachment. — Michael

Indeed. Though I'm not fully clear on how the Clinton impeachment went down (was 10 at the time), I'm eager as ever to draw comparisons to previous impeachments and the situation Trump now finds himself in.

Wow we're really making this country great again huh...

I'm bored. Where are the Trump sympathizers who want to defend this flagrant affront to human decency. Or we just gonna talk about Descartes for the umpteenth time?