Re: DQ: ask your reps/senators not to attend the inauguration

1

I had no idea about Nixon. Was that a point at which enough was known about Watergate for the legislators to be leery, or was it just total revulsion at Nixon's record?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
2

There may be some transmission error - the BBC here says it was the 1973 inauguration, but that links to this Phoenix news affiliate which says "first inauguration".


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
3

Just confirmed (through the paper) that my Rep won't be there. I suppose I should call my non-asshole Senator*.

*I get an extra surge of seething rage at the fact that Comey's ratfucking got Toomey reƫlected. Christ, what an asshole.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
4

This CBS news paper on inaugural history, apparently from 2005, says it was the 1973 one.

One month after the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam, fifteen thousand youthful demonstrators congregated at the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument to protest the policies of the Nixon administration -- and 80 Congressmen boycotted the inaugural ceremonies -- as Nixon entered his second term.

Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
5

Seconding the entirety of 3.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
6

the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam

The War on Christmas.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
7

I've pinged my Rep. It didn't occur to me to ping the Senators because all the action should be in the House. Have any Senators said they aren't going? But yeah, I'll contact them too.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
8

None, I think.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
9

Oh, hey, something I can actually ask my congresscritters about. So far they've been on top of/in the right direction on everything, such that "go team!" is about the only thing I could have called to say.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
10

Obama just commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
11

Obama just commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence.

Oh, wow, that's good news.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
12

It's on the BBC. She'll be out in May. (Presumably commutations can't be reversed?)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
13

It's on the BBC. She'll be out in May. (Presumably commutations can't be reversed?)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
14

Reverse commuting is a thing I've heard of.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
15

I hate you, Moby. That was great.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
16

I liked the "Lot's daughters" one better, but maybe everybody is too secular to get the reference.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
17

Or maybe it was too early in the evening for incest jokes?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
18

Can someone please elaborate o how he'll be violating the Cinstitution when he takes the oath of office? Is this the emoluments thing?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
19

18.last to 18.first.
I'm sure he'll have lots of other violations but that's the one that kicks in on day 1- he has foreign delegations staying at hotels he owns, from which he profits.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
20

I was honestly expecting 13 to lead to a maths joke.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
21

If your rep is already on record as boycotting call with support, important to let them know you have their backs and build momentum for future opposition.

Senators are probably not persuadable but should still hear from us.

The anti-nixon tally should be beatable and would be news.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
22

To 19, I think the emoluments thing is a bullshit charge. It's ridiculous to say that selling something at the market rate to an agent of a foreign state counts as an emolument. The clause is clearly meant to cover things like James VII being King of Britain while also getting a generous pension from the King of France.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
23

Do you have a clear sense of where you want to draw the line between selling a hotel room at the market price and entering into real estate deals that could be significant in comparison with Trump's net worth? I don't, and I don't think there's a good place to draw it other than at zero.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
24

I mean, reductio ad absurdum, if a serving president had a small dairy farm in upstate New York and sold a pint of milk to a passing Swedish naval attache, does that count as a breach of the clause? He's getting money! From the representative of a foreign power! Or if the Coatbridge council library buys a copy of Obama's book and he gets $1.50 in royalties?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
25

23: I think the line there has to be drawn on the basis of conflicts of interest, not on the basis that it is somehow inherently corrupting to sell stuff to foreigners. But apparently presidents can't have conflicts of interest.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
26

1. Foreign diplomatic and trade delegations are booking rooms, facilities and services at trump's place in dc bc they anticipate it would be noticed if they went to rivals. 2. The nature of the development business is to seek permits, which he will continue to do abroad from numerous foreign governments. 3. This is just what we know about, given *zero* disclosure.

Carter had to sell his peanut farm, for heaven's sake.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
27

26: agreed absolutely that it's incredibly dodgy and corrupt, but it isn't an emolument in the way that's meant: it is a very clear conflict of interest.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
28

26 last to 24 - yes.

We are living through the systematic destruction of the norms that have kept the US political settlement semi-tolerably afloat in the post WW2 era. The only way to stem the slide to authoritarianism is to create a mass opposition. I am working towards that.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
29

But apparently presidents can't have conflicts of interest.

Which suggests that it makes sense to interpret the emoulments clause literally, because there's no other safeguard for that sort of problem.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
30

29: impeachment?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
31

Impeachment not going to happen until there is a mass movement in opposition already solidly in the streets for when the appropriate scandal presents itself. The task now is to mobilize the mass opposition.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
32

Foreign delegations are attempting to gain favor by taking an action that results in money going to Trump- and he publicly encouraged them to do so. Trump has also made it clear he notices what groups do and don't take the action that results in him getting money. That's a pretty clean example, regardless of what subsequent benefits/punishments Trump does or does not confer.
Also it's arguable whether Trump's DC hotel is market rate. They've been jacking up prices at the bar at least, don't know how it compares to other hotels. I will personally investigate further in a few weeks.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
33

31: I've heard people say they think impeachment within 2 years is possible. But then we get Pence. Probably worse than Jen or Rubio.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
34

The clause says "of any kind whatever" which seems grounds for interpreting its meaning maximally where there's doubt.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
35

33: Domestically, yes, but much less world-on-fire risk.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
36

31 is right.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
37

30: For what would you impeach him on this, if not for the emoluments clause?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
38

Spying for Russia?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
39

Oh, "on this."


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
40

Feinstein's office - *Feinstein!!!* - says she is still undecided. Call, people, call!


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
41

Trump has already used a congratulatory call from a foreign leader to lobby for expediting permits on one of his projects. That alone ought to be impeachable.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
42

Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. If there is the political will, Trump will be impeached. If there isn't, it doesn't matter what he does. The acts are secondary at best.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
43

Question for lawyers

With a commutation and not a pardon, can Trump now prosecute Manning for, for instance, treason? Or some other charge?

(If so, Obama just sucked up the good PR without really having any compassion)


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
44

Sorry, sorry, where's potchkeh?

I'm an idiot, double jeopardy or military jurisdiction or something, there is no way Manning can be recharged for those crimes. No way.

And in any case, of course Obama believed that there was no way Trump and Sessions etc would be so cruel because Obama, like the rest of us, believes in the essential goodness of people and is an optimist cause he's so goooood.

Sessions will, like us, be happy to let Manning walk. No problem. Obama knew this all along.

And if Manning is prosecuted in six months, well that is completely on the evil Republicans, not Saint Obama.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
45

I'm an idiot, double jeopardy or military jurisdiction or something, there is no way Manning can be recharged for those crimes. No way.

There was gold fringe on the flags at the original court, so she can totally be tried again.

I don't think Trump will prosecute Manning again though, because it would piss off Assange, the guy a) who got him elected, and b) probably has access to the pee hooker tapes.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
46

This time, I really do want to be told I'm full of shit and Manning can face no future charges from the Sessions DoJ. I really fucking do. To get the commutation, and then be recharged is too fucking cruel.

But I am not an optimist, and don't believe in the essential goodness in people.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
47

41. I don't think you can impeach someone for something done when not in office. (Of course, 42 is right, you can impeach for any reason at all, as the Republicans proved. You just have to have the Congress supporting you:

GLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
48

47.last: My favorite lines from Shakespeare.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
49

Also, if I ever have a son I think I'll name him Hotspur. At least as a middle name. Wallaby Jimsonweed Hotspur Quantum Togolosh. Wally for short.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
50

"Hotspur" probably has "Kevin" as his porn star name.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
51

My Democratic Rep just tweeted she's attending the inauguration because "I believe in the dignity and sanctity of the Office of the President." Booo!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
52

So I read like 2 posts and 500 comments over at LGM and I am apparently the only one for whom this scenario is occurring. I say apparently, because the posters are really smart, and are spending a lot of energy defending the commutation and saying a pardon is unwarranted, in other words justifying Obama and probably understanding further Manning prosecution is coming.

Like, what is wrong with me? What is wrong with my mind to imagine this?

In six months or so, when Manning is retried, Obama will grab a mike and say: "In my judgement a pardon was not warranted, but the commutation means that of course I strongly oppose any further charges against Chelsea Manning."

And Democrats will nod and say: "What a wise and good man. Not Obama's fault." And Manning will suffer in prison hell forever.

And I'm thinking if Obama really wanted Manning to escape further prosecution from an evil Sessions DoJ, he would have fucking pardoned her.

I'm thinking: "Obama is a radically cruel prick with a preternatural skill at avoiding blame."

What the fuck is wrong with my mind?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
53

53: Mine announced a while ago that she wasn't going.

She wasn't my preferred candidate in the primary, but I'm warming to her.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
54

I have no idea why I referred to my own comment. I'm too sleepy.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
55

I talk to myself a lot also. Usually don't type to myself, but plenty of muttering.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
56

Do you think Trump's going to pardon Snowdon? He might do it to piss off the intelligence community and reinforce the broader Trump/Russia/Greenwaldian partnership.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
57

I bet Trump pardons his son-in-law's dad and that's about it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
58

I'm sure he's got lots of cronies with criminal records to expunge.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
59

He should come out swinging by pardoning Bernie Madoff. Then, Kevin Bacon kills Madoff and Trump pardons Bacon.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
60

I wonder if he's been waiting so long to appoint a Secretary of Agriculture because he really is going to pardon Jared from Subway and appoint him, like in that Onion article.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
61

Endorsing everything dq says in this thread.

I'm afraid we're going to find out that emoluments means whatever Trump's Supreme Court says it means.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
62

we're going to find out that emoluments means whatever Trump's Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says it means.

FTFY


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
63

So what does Kennedy think about emoluments? Do we have any evidence?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 11:16 PM
horizontal rule
64

SCOTUS has no role in impeachment aside from the CJ putting on his fancy gold trimmed robe to preside over the Senate trial. I don't see where Kennedy gets a say.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01-17-17 11:55 PM
horizontal rule
65

Presumably there would be some sort of lawsuit over whether impeachment is warranted. I'm not sure how that would work, exactly, but I know the SC would have to have the final say.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 12:07 AM
horizontal rule
66

Like, Congress would vote to impeach, then Trump would sue arguing that they didn't have legitimate grounds to impeach. Then it would be up to the courts.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 12:26 AM
horizontal rule
67

Gaming out a lot of scenarios that may arise during the Trump era reminds me of how important it is to have an independent judiciary.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 12:27 AM
horizontal rule
68

I'm sure they'll make their best effort to crush it, so we should keep an eye out and push back whenever possible.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 12:38 AM
horizontal rule
69

Here I'm thinking particularly of Egypt, where for a while it seemed like the judiciary might have blocked the advent of a new era of dictatorship, but then that's not what actually happened.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 12:42 AM
horizontal rule
70

64 is probably right. You couldn't have a court case with the President. You might with respect to some other officer, but there's no one to bring it. No, anything that any 34 Republican senators think is OK is OK.

I don't remember if it was Rehnquist or someone else who observed that the failed impeachment against Samuel Chase demonstrated the uselessness of the remedy. Thomas Jefferson probably.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 2:58 AM
horizontal rule
71

65, 66, 70: Charley's right, I think: the Court should refuse to hear that kind of case as a political question.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 4:17 AM
horizontal rule
72

There's a hiking site I read instead of actually going hiking (which would take more time than I have now and it's cold anyway). For two days now that site often displays an ad offering free tickets to the inauguration. I hope that means they can't fill the place, but it's probably just some kind of fraud.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 6:42 AM
horizontal rule
73

There was a thing on fb the other day that the ticket scalpers are getting stuck with tickets they can't move. Which is win-win, if true.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 6:56 AM
horizontal rule
74

I saw that article and thought it was less than convincing because it was about a guy who bought a ticket from a scalper and was trying to scalp it for more. It read more like this guy was a shitty scalper.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
75

Trump has presumably sold more tickets than there are places to stand in, so it'll all even out with the professional scalpers richer and the shitty ones poorer, as nature intended.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
76

Everybody wants to hear Jon Voight sing.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
77

Maybe he'll shoot Trump with a silenced pistol and laugh maniacally while throwing himself to a feigned death.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
78

74 Even less sympathetic than that is he's a Jewish guy who then decided to advertise the scalped tickets on Stor/mfr/ont.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
79

If they paid too much, they'd still get full value because of having their stereotypes confirmed.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
80

My rep, G.K. Butterfield, has announced he won't be there, along with NC's other 2 Dem House members.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
81

On the other hand, if congress impeached and the president instead of suing just said they were wrong and refused to step down, then the supreme court just say that's a political dispute between the political branches?


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
82

That's just a coup.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
83

What does it matter what the court says?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
84

If the coup is bungled it may end with US Marshals evicting Trump from the White House on live TV, which would be most pleasing.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
85

No, it wouldn't. It would mean the U.S. now has a Praetorian Guard.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
86

How about a 25th amendment remedy? Pence and the cabinet report to Congress that Trump is unfit, on psychiatric grounds.

Quicker than impeachment, probably, but without precedent.


Posted by: Robert | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
87

For Trump to be impeached, he would have to behave in such a way as to convince most of the Republican Party that Trump will destroy the Republican Party. I give that about a 25% chance of happening.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
88

86 is interesting, especially since it is entirely plausible that Trump doesn't know the 25th Amendment exists because he doesn't have the attention span to read that far.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 9:05 AM
horizontal rule
89

I didn't know about the incapacity section of that amendment until after the election.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-18-17 9:23 AM
horizontal rule