F.B.I. Raids Trump Lawyer's Office

That's a great plan, assuming Trump doesn't do anything crazy, but what are the odds of that?

FilmCarp said:
I don't think the Democrats want to impeach Trump.  To impeach and convict they need 60 votes, which they don't and won't have, and to impeach and fail would be a disaster.  Second, if they leave him in office to continue this disaster they have issues to run on, and if they find decent candidates and if they focus on getting out the vote and if they play their cards right ( all things that they have failed at to some extent for the last 10 years) then they can run the table between 2018 and 2020.

If the Dems win the House, I think their time would be way better spent investigating the hell out of every major Trump appointee. Impeachment is not worth the trouble unless something happens that finally causes the Repubs to wake the flock up.

Step 1 of the plant must be winning the House in 2018.  If the Dems get a majority in the House, they can buffer against any legislative craziness.

gerritn said:
That's a great plan, assuming Trump doesn't do anything crazy, but what are the odds of that?

FilmCarp said:
I don't think the Democrats want to impeach Trump.  To impeach and convict they need 60 votes, which they don't and won't have, and to impeach and fail would be a disaster.  Second, if they leave him in office to continue this disaster they have issues to run on, and if they find decent candidates and if they focus on getting out the vote and if they play their cards right ( all things that they have failed at to some extent for the last 10 years) then they can run the table between 2018 and 2020.

yahooyahoo said:

Step 1 of the plant must be winning the House in 2018.  If the Dems get a majority in the House, they can buffer against any legislative craziness.

gerritn said:
That's a great plan, assuming Trump doesn't do anything crazy, but what are the odds of that?

FilmCarp said:
I don't think the Democrats want to impeach Trump.  To impeach and convict they need 60 votes, which they don't and won't have, and to impeach and fail would be a disaster.  Second, if they leave him in office to continue this disaster they have issues to run on, and if they find decent candidates and if they focus on getting out the vote and if they play their cards right ( all things that they have failed at to some extent for the last 10 years) then they can run the table between 2018 and 2020.

I worry that a Dem majority will do little. Democrats are the masters of infighting. Sure they’ll hold off any crazy legislative agendas but get anything meaningful passed? I’m hopeful but only so much. 

Just stopping the Trumpers at this point is what needs to happen.  Under the most optimistic circumstances, they won't have the votes to purse a Democratic legislative program.

If Mueller presented video in 4K resolution of Trump and Putin in a room planning to use social media to influence the election using funds from the Russian mob funneled through the NRA 34 Senators wpuld probably vote for acquittal. 

tjohn said:

Just stopping the Trumpers at this point is what needs to happen.  Under the most optimistic circumstances, they won't have the votes to purse a Democratic legislative program.

If we’re lucky they’ll have a 61 senate majority, a SC seat will open up and they can use their nuclear option. These are my dreams, far fetched but they keep me going. 

ElizMcCord said:

tjohn said:

Just stopping the Trumpers at this point is what needs to happen.  Under the most optimistic circumstances, they won't have the votes to purse a Democratic legislative program.

If we’re lucky they’ll have a 61 senate majority, a SC seat will open up and they can use their nuclear option. These are my dreams, far fetched but they keep me going. 

Not mathematically possible. Dems would need 12 more seats and only 9 Republican seats are up for contest this year.

It just takes 51 votes to torpedo an unsuitable nominee (and, unless we are replacing Thomas, Alito, or Goresuck, pretty much everyone on Trumps list is unsuitable).

Correct. 51 "no" votes defeats any nominee.

LOST said:

Correct. 51 "no" votes defeats any nominee.

So we need 52 yes? I like the math already LOL. My dreams are valid. 

Sigh. I just feel like we need a good win. I’ve felt so defeated since the election. 

Let's assume Dems win the house but not the senate in November. That means that Trump can still:

- start trade wars

- start shooting wars

- start nuclear shooting wars

- nominate nut jobs on the SC

- fire Robert Mueller

Without any repercussion.

And I fully agree that the raid on Mchael Cohen was an attack on our country, comparable with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. But can you imagine what would happen if for example another 9/11 would happen with this guy in the WH? That would be really scary.

yahooyahoo said:
Step 1 of the plant must be winning the House in 2018.  If the Dems get a majority in the House, they can buffer against any legislative craziness.

gerritn said:
That's a great plan, assuming Trump doesn't do anything crazy, but what are the odds of that?

FilmCarp said:
I don't think the Democrats want to impeach Trump.  To impeach and convict they need 60 votes, which they don't and won't have, and to impeach and fail would be a disaster.  Second, if they leave him in office to continue this disaster they have issues to run on, and if they find decent candidates and if they focus on getting out the vote and if they play their cards right ( all things that they have failed at to some extent for the last 10 years) then they can run the table between 2018 and 2020.

ElizMcCord said:

LOST said:

Correct. 51 "no" votes defeats any nominee.

So we need 52 yes? I like the math already LOL. My dreams are valid.  Sigh. I just feel like we need a good win. I’ve felt so defeated since the election. 

No. 51. There are 100 Senators.  Whoever Trump nominates has to get 50 votes plus Pence breaking the tie to get confirmed. So 51 no votes defeats the nominee.

Unless Schumer simply refuses to bring a nominee up for a vote. 

Oh boy, now Michael Cohen apparently had a habit of recording conversations and storing them on his computer. This could get really entertaining after all.

gerritn said:
Oh boy, now Michael Cohen apparently had a habit of recording conversations and storing them on his computer. This could get really entertaining after all.

The search of Cohen's office was not a fishing expedition.  Any tapes that don't match the search warrant won't be released.

tom said:
Unless Schumer simply refuses to bring a nominee up for a vote. 

What was McConnell’s rationale? That the primary season was already underway? So then Ginsburg can retire in January of 2020 by my math.

It would be interesting to see what would happen given a slight Democratic majority. Trump could try to do what Obama did, which is pick a fairly moderate candidate with impeccable credentials making it harder for the Dems to straight-up vote down a nominee. 

The Cohen problem highlights a fascinating aspect of the attorney-client privilege concept. My understanding is that all the materials that were seized have to be reviewed by attorneys (or agents?) who are not connected with the investigation to determine what can and can’t be used in the investigation. So those people get to review all kinds of documents, recordings etc where people may admit criminal behavior in a privileged communication and if it’s not connected to the warrant for the seizure it can’t be pursued.  Sort of the “la la la la la I can’t hear you” approach.

But if there’s a conversation where Trump tells Cohen to pay off Stephanie Clifford to stay silent, and that they’ll siphon off some campaign funds to reimburse him, that would be relevant and not subject to attorney-client privilege.

It’s this kind of legal subtlety that Trump can exploit to appeal to many of his base. The FBI is playing by rules that are nuanced. But Trump can bleat that “attorney-client privilege Is dead” and people believe him if they don’t take the time to educate themselves and do some critical thinking. All they see is the FBI “breaking the rules” that they learned watching “LA Law” or “Boston Legal” or “Matlock” or “How to Get Away With Usurping à Nation”.

I posted this in the Mueller thread:

" Libby has already had his right to vote and his bar license restored. This pardon is purely symbolic. I’m sure Libby’s happy to have it, but the audience here is Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and a slew of other people who can incriminate Trump."

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/04/12/the-libby-pardon-trumps-object-lesson-in-presidential-firewalls/

By all accounts, well all that I have read, Michael Cohen was a mediocre, ambulance chasing attorney at best, before he was plucked by Trump. Maybe he will roll over on his client to save his own skin.  Disbarment or prison? #mydreamsarevalid