US Politics Thread

[idahoblues]

What's the haps today ?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

And the hits just keep coming...

What I find very strange about this whole thing... is that whenever there is even the slightest whiff of a risk to national security, the US will stomp all over it. In that respect history tends to show they are a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of country. Defence and intel is their biggest business and they don't fuck about.

So how much of a persistent threat to national security does Trump have to be before they act and place him under some kind of supervision? Especially, if evidence like this exists. It leads me to a few possible conclusions, either:
1) They don't think Trump is actually much of a real threat because he is too impotent to be dangerous.
2) They are confident that whatever threat he did pose from having these documents has been sufficiently remediated.
3) They think the threat to national security from reactions to arresting Trump outweighs the urgency. So they'd rather be sure they have it watertight before acting.

1 and 2 don't make sense to me, any risk is too big of a risk here... so I think it has to be 3. Which is kind of chilling because it is suggestive that they think MAGA supporters and internal right-wing terror groups pose a bigger threat than Trump splurging secrets on defence and nukes to mendacious foreign regimes.

Would value the input of some state-side blues. Do you think putting him behind bars would be like detonating a powder keg? Because it surely has to happen sooner or later.

 

[idahoblues]

What I find very strange about this whole thing... is that whenever there is even the slightest whiff of a risk to national security, the US will stomp all over it. In that respect history tends to show they are a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of country. Defence and intel is their biggest business and they don't fuck about.

So how much of a persistent threat to national security does Trump have to be before they act and place him under some kind of supervision? Especially, if evidence like this exists. It leads me to a few possible conclusions, either:
1) They don't think Trump is actually much of a real threat because he is too impotent to be dangerous.
2) They are confident that whatever threat he did pose from having these documents has been sufficiently remediated.
3) They think the threat to national security from reactions to arresting Trump outweighs the urgency. So they'd rather be sure they have it watertight before acting.

1 and 2 don't make sense to me, any risk is too big of a risk here... so I think it has to be 3. Which is kind of chilling because it is suggestive that they think MAGA supporters and internal right-wing terror groups pose a bigger threat than Trump splurging secrets on defence and nukes to mendacious foreign regimes.

Would value the input of some state-side blues. Do you think putting him behind bars would be like detonating a powder keg? Because it surely has to happen sooner or later.

I think you're right that it might create a huge problem, however, not prosecuting the **** would be worse. The law has to be maintained, fuck his idiot followers

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

What I find very strange about this whole thing... is that whenever there is even the slightest whiff of a risk to national security, the US will stomp all over it. In that respect history tends to show they are a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of country. Defence and intel is their biggest business and they don't fuck about.

So how much of a persistent threat to national security does Trump have to be before they act and place him under some kind of supervision? Especially, if evidence like this exists. It leads me to a few possible conclusions, either:
1) They don't think Trump is actually much of a real threat because he is too impotent to be dangerous.
2) They are confident that whatever threat he did pose from having these documents has been sufficiently remediated.
3) They think the threat to national security from reactions to arresting Trump outweighs the urgency. So they'd rather be sure they have it watertight before acting.

1 and 2 don't make sense to me, any risk is too big of a risk here... so I think it has to be 3. Which is kind of chilling because it is suggestive that they think MAGA supporters and internal right-wing terror groups pose a bigger threat than Trump splurging secrets on defence and nukes to mendacious foreign regimes.

Would value the input of some state-side blues. Do you think putting him behind bars would be like detonating a powder keg? Because it surely has to happen sooner or later.

Omar has the right of this one:

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

What I find very strange about this whole thing... is that whenever there is even the slightest whiff of a risk to national security, the US will stomp all over it. In that respect history tends to show they are a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of country. Defence and intel is their biggest business and they don't fuck about.

So how much of a persistent threat to national security does Trump have to be before they act and place him under some kind of supervision? Especially, if evidence like this exists. It leads me to a few possible conclusions, either:
1) They don't think Trump is actually much of a real threat because he is too impotent to be dangerous.
2) They are confident that whatever threat he did pose from having these documents has been sufficiently remediated.
3) They think the threat to national security from reactions to arresting Trump outweighs the urgency. So they'd rather be sure they have it watertight before acting.

1 and 2 don't make sense to me, any risk is too big of a risk here... so I think it has to be 3. Which is kind of chilling because it is suggestive that they think MAGA supporters and internal right-wing terror groups pose a bigger threat than Trump splurging secrets on defence and nukes to mendacious foreign regimes.

Would value the input of some state-side blues. Do you think putting him behind bars would be like detonating a powder keg? Because it surely has to happen sooner or later.

I think this is a thoughtful analysis and I am not sure which of the three it is — maybe a combination with a heavy lean on 3. But if you’re going to go after a POTUS on any criminal charge, everything has to be airtight as airtight can be. Again, the history of Watergate bears out the excruciating step-by-step process all three branches of government went through to ensure Nixon made the choice to resign himself because there was simply no way out.

I don’t know if he goes behind bars but if he does it will be a bunch of cowards with no organiz(s)ed plan, like January 6, save for a few complete burn-it-all-down cuckoos who cause real damage. One or two confrontations with the national guard will put an end to any pretensions and they’ll all be distracted by the pitched battle to fill the power vacuum.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[BayernMan]

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I think this is a thoughtful analysis and I am not sure which of the three it is — maybe a combination with a heavy lean on 3. But if you’re going to go after a POTUS on any criminal charge, everything has to be airtight as airtight can be. Again, the history of Watergate bears out the excruciating step-by-step process all three branches of government went through to ensure Nixon made the choice to resign himself because there was simply no way out.

And even then, he was immediately pardoned, was he not?

That's what I imagine will happen if Trump ever goes to prison. He'll be pardoned by the next Republican president to be elected.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

And even then, he was immediately pardoned, was he not?

That's what I imagine will happen if Trump ever goes to prison. He'll be pardoned by the next Republican president to be elected.

Maybe. But he’ll need to be alive for that to happen. Don’t forget Nixon was replaced by a Republican — his VP Ford. And paid the price for the pardon in 1976, losing to Carter.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

What I find very strange about this whole thing... is that whenever there is even the slightest whiff of a risk to national security, the US will stomp all over it. In that respect history tends to show they are a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of country. Defence and intel is their biggest business and they don't fuck about.

So how much of a persistent threat to national security does Trump have to be before they act and place him under some kind of supervision? Especially, if evidence like this exists. It leads me to a few possible conclusions, either:
1) They don't think Trump is actually much of a real threat because he is too impotent to be dangerous.
2) They are confident that whatever threat he did pose from having these documents has been sufficiently remediated.
3) They think the threat to national security from reactions to arresting Trump outweighs the urgency. So they'd rather be sure they have it watertight before acting.

1 and 2 don't make sense to me, any risk is too big of a risk here... so I think it has to be 3. Which is kind of chilling because it is suggestive that they think MAGA supporters and internal right-wing terror groups pose a bigger threat than Trump splurging secrets on defence and nukes to mendacious foreign regimes.

Would value the input of some state-side blues. Do you think putting him behind bars would be like detonating a powder keg? Because it surely has to happen sooner or later.

I would also consider the reputational risk to the USA as a whole:

4) Any successful prosecution is effectively an admission of failure at the highest level.

Imagine a Western democratic state being so legislatively incompetent that it allows a demonstrably corruptible criminal to rise to the very top of government whilst simultaneously promoting regime change in other countries for that very same reason?

Electing Trump has set the USA back years in terms of intentional diplomacy. They aren't going to be resetting that clock anytime soon unless Trump is effectively dealt with.