LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 358
0 members and 358 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
View Single Post
Old 05-15-2017, 11:50 AM   #163
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Damn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
This piece has enough truth in it to be truly terrifying.
_________

'Liberals like to say that we’re playing chess while Trump is playing checkers. What’s really happening is that we’re playing chess, Trump just knocked over the chessboard, and Dems are screaming “technically, you just lost” while Trump shoves our king up our asshole.

The people who can appoint a “special prosecutor” are Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, and technically Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It should go without saying that Donald Trump is not going to call for a special prosecutor to prosecute himself. It should also go without saying that Jeff Sessions, who has in NO WAY “recused” himself from the Russia investigation, is not going to sign off on a serious investigation into whether he colluded with the Russians to influence an election.

The freaking Lannisters have more respect for the rule of law than those two.

And if you are pinning your hopes on Rosenstein, know that he served up Comey’s head on a platter like he was probably ordered to do. There’s not going to be a special prosecutor. We are dealing with people who literally DGAF.

Congress could appoint an “independent commission” without approval from the executive branch. Of course, Congress is controlled by Republicans and Republicans have been playing the “there are no rules” game since America had the audacity to put a black man in charge. Mitch McConnell decided that black presidents only get to president for seven years, instead of eight, and won. “Deficit hawk” Paul Ryan passed a health care bill that will explode the deficit, and made people vote on it before they could read it and score it, and won. Everything that has happened in America over the past few years tells Congressional Republicans that they “win” when they simply ignore the “norms” of American governance.

You think they’ll change now? Why? WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? Again, they’re not playing a “game,” the have raw power and they are executing it. Why do you think they’re going to lube it up for you? Democrats are getting force-fed with a feeding tube, and Chuck Schumer is up there crying about his spoon full of sugar.

I know it doesn’t always seem this way, but American-style government exists by consent. The governed consent to be governed, usually by somebody nearly half of them didn’t vote for. The military consents to be governed by a civilian commander-in-chief, who in turn consents to be checked by Congress and the courts which have no military power. Elected and appointed officials consent to be governed by some old pieces of paper.

Trump does not consent. He doesn’t consent to your norms or your rules. There are only two questions Trump asks himself: “What can I do?” and “What can’t I do?” His power is not unlimited — eventually the world will rise up against him, even if Americans are too docile to do anything — but whatever power he has, he’s going to use.'

TM
Regarding this "consent" thing, you'll rarely see so much candor (this is a great article, btw). This applies to most of our institutions. I believe the media typically shies away from such a blunt analysis because to clue the broader public into how much leverage it has over the instruments of enforcement invites a lot more discussion of how it might thwart policies it does not like.

Charlie Rangel brilliantly said a few years ago that he could drive the Republic to the brink by reintroducing the draft. He was right. People at all levels would overwhelmingly refuse it, and in that situation, the enforcement capabilities of the institutions compelling obedience would fail. (They probably wouldn't even try to enforce it, as evidence of certain failure would be so obvious.)

Another author might extend this concept a bit. Isn't the bigger argument, Where does the game go when the winning strategy becomes refusing to play by the consented-to rules? Because, sooner or later, the rest of everybody else is going to adopt McConnell's and Trump's strategies.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 05-15-2017 at 11:52 AM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:19 AM.