Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Ok... So let me get this straight

Sessions recused himself from the white house investigation because... he should recuse himself from the investigation.

And Trump is mad at Sessions because Sessions is the only one who could fire the person doing the investigation.

So Trump wants to fire Sessions and hire someone who will fire the guy doing the investigation...

All because it might create a Warrant that will make people look at Trump's spending? Trump you have nothing to hide, your books are perfectly in order. PFT!

[smjjames]

Ok... So let me get this straight

Sessions recused himself from the white house investigation because... he should recuse himself from the investigation.

And Trump is mad at Sessions because Sessions is the only one who could fire the person doing the investigation.

So Trump wants to fire Sessions and hire someone who will fire the guy doing the investigation...

All because it might create a Warrant that will make people look at Trump's spending? Trump you have nothing to hide, your books are perfectly in order. PFT!

That's about the size of the percieved and stated reasoning for why Trump has been whaling on Sessions.

[Frumple]

Huh. Did sessions actually get around to explicitly recusing himself? Last I paid attention he was still trying to hump the letter rather than spirit of the statements involved.

[sluissa]

Huh. Did sessions actually get around to explicitly recusing himself? Last I paid attention he was still trying to hump the letter rather than spirit of the statements involved.

He did recuse himself explicitly at the beginning... and then sort of walked all over that line later on... So yes?

I think Sessions is one of the first to realize that while trump may be metaphorical rubber and nothing sticks to him... That's not the case for everyone around him.

[Frumple]

Ah, never mind, I was getting sessions confused with the other one that had a recusal kerfluffle.

[misko27]

That's a rather apt way of putting it sluissa. Trump may be able to defy reason anything and everything, but thats not the case for his allies and underlings; hence why the job of being his spokesman was so difficult.

Anyway, one thing I've noticed is that with Spicer (a Priebus loyalist) out, Priebus himself out, and Sessions on the ropes, there are not many links left to the Republican leadership in the Trump Administration. Priebus was, after all, sort of supposed to be the GOP's "Man on the inside" as it were, and with him and his loyalists gone I wonder what the GOP is thinking about the Administration, or whether that has any implications for the GOP's relationship to Trump going forward.

[Frumple]

Probably? Iirc there's already been rumblings from trump's lot about cutting the WH loose from the GOP. It'd kinda' fit their profile... though it'd probably be political suicide and quite possibly the only way you'd get the reps to impeach a president elected on their ticket.

'Course, I'm fairly sure at least some of the folks at the WH recognize just how bad an idea that is. Just a wee titch less sure that knowledge would actually stop 'em :V

[smjjames]

Probably? Iirc there's already been rumblings from trump's lot about cutting the WH loose from the GOP. It'd kinda' fit their profile... though it'd probably be political suicide and quite possibly the only way you'd get the reps to impeach a president elected on their ticket.

'Course, I'm fairly sure at least some of the folks at the WH recognize just how bad an idea that is. Just a wee titch less sure that knowledge would actually stop 'em :V

Firing Sessions for the reasons that Trump has repeatedly stated and implied would definetly piss off the Republicans, but in and of itself as an event, it wouldn't lead to impeachment. Not sure how much more muted the response would be if Sessions simply resigned on his own, if there is a muted reaction, since Trump has been clearly signalling that he is trying to push out Sessions.

[Frumple]

Oh, wasn't intending to suggest sessions going would be cause for impeachment goings. It almost certainly wouldn't without some serious other stuff going down in the process. Just that the WH actually hard cutting off most connections with the RNC would (be one of the few things that could) potentially lead (after a bit) to a RNC that might suddenly find the prospect not quite so unpalatable.

[Descan]

At this point, the one thing that could cause someone to overreact is NK displaying a capacity to send a nuke via ICBM.

If the response was appropriate or in line with what you could reasonably expect from an informed decision, it wouldn't be called "overreacting".

yes that is the definition of overreact congratulations

i think it'd be nice to assume sheb knew that, though, and that he was talking about responses that *aren't* that. like, say, nuking pyongyang.

[martinuzz]

I doubt Trump would nuke Pyongyang. I'd worry more about him sending in troops, only to find that Seoul gets turned into a millions of dead mass grave, and the US has a new Vietnam war they're going to lose 10 years later.

[EnigmaticHat]

Its worth pointing out that Trump can't declare war on his own.  Without congressional approval he can only do two things, he can send in a limited number of troops without a declaration of war, or he can launch nukes.  The first is frankly pretty similar to the second, given the close connection between NK and China.

The most plausible NK scenario is we launch a bunch of conventional missiles at a testing site.  This would be an extremely bad idea, it would be the Cuban Missile Crisis x3.  The only reason its plausible is because Trump wouldn't need to convince many people to help him and because there's a lot of recent precedent for actions like that.  If he tells the US troops stationed in South Korea to cross the DMZ, my guess would be the generals immediately start delaying and trying to get congress to bail them out so they don't have to do it.

[smjjames]

I doubt Trump would nuke Pyongyang. I'd worry more about him sending in troops, only to find that Seoul gets turned into a millions of dead mass grave, and the US has a new Vietnam war they're going to lose 10 years later.

I don't think Vietnam would be the right comparison, though it'd definetly be bloody. The NK regieme would probably die pretty quick and there's the uncertain reaction of China and Russia, other than condemnation. One thing that is definetly certain though, is that we'll be dealing with the aftermath for decades to come.

Its worth pointing out that Trump can't declare war on his own.  Without congressional approval he can only do two things, he can send in a limited number of troops without a declaration of war, or he can launch nukes.  The first is frankly pretty similar to the second, given the close connection between NK and China.

The most plausible NK scenario is we launch a bunch of conventional missiles at a testing site.  This would be an extremely bad idea, it would be the Cuban Missile Crisis x3.  The only reason its plausible is because Trump wouldn't need to convince many people to help him and because there's a lot of recent precedent for actions like that.  If he tells the US troops stationed in South Korea to cross the DMZ, my guess would be the generals immediately start delaying and trying to get congress to bail them out so they don't have to do it.

Technically, the Korean War never formally ended, the 'end' of the war was just a truce. Though what is also likely is that Trump does something rash that would fall short of actual declaration of war, NK freaks out, does something, then SK retaliates, it spirals from there and we automatically get pulled in due to the treaty with SK.

Also, there's a bunch of rumors floating around that Trump might shunt Sessions into the DHS chief position. But rumors being what they are, it's just rumors at this point.

[Dunamisdeos]

I'd be honestly more concerned with the fate of the NK populace.

They seem like one of those drink-the-Kool-Aid types.

[smjjames]

You do realize the extent that the NK does their propoganda and brainwashing of citizens? Stockholm syndrome would be a closer analogy than 'a drink-the-kool-aid-type'. That'll be a longer term issue though.

The short-term fate would still be a concern though since you'd have the prospect of refugees fleeing the fighting (which is probably China's #1 fear over a NK collapse) and everything else associated from a war zone.