WaPo: Mueller now investigating whether Trump obstructed justice

[Technocracy Timmy]

Also what exactly is Trumpism? Is it becasically an Americanized version of the National Front?

Trumpism is anything that Trump thinks will make people love him, and if possible, make him rich at the same time. Two of the most consistent things Trump has shown a deep desire for in life is to be talked about/liked and to hoard wealth.

I think the best description for this ideology came from TD's post about it here, "The Current Party System".

PM me tomorrow, because there are a series of posts by FuzzyBear, myself, and others that I feel adequately define what is "Trumpism." I'm too tired and lazy to find it now. I'm sorta burned out for the day on debate

I will I do think Trumpism is, in part, a global phenomena that encompasses both the left and right.

[The Self]

There's no substantial difference between 'Trumpism' and 'Reaganism'. There could have been - Trump was uniquely positioned, among all Republican Presidential nominees, to endorse a Keynesian cornerstone like universal health care above the heads of his Party establishment - but this would have required the Trump movement to be a legitimately populist one, rather than a last madcap effort to staunch the self-destruction of the Reagan coalition.

For Trump to be a realigning figure would require that he, y'know, do some realigning on fundamental policy issues and their relationship to the established Parties. He hasn't.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

There's no substantial difference between 'Trumpism' and 'Reaganism'. There could have been - Trump was uniquely positioned, among all Republican Presidential nominees, to endorse a Keynesian cornerstone like universal health care above the heads of his Party establishment - but this would have required the Trump movement to be a legitimately populist one, rather than a last madcap effort to staunch the self-destruction of the Reagan coalition.

I've recently made the argument that Trumpism, at least rhetorically, is the logical conclusion of Reaganism.

But anywho, this thread is about Mueller. Sorry for getting this off topic.

[ProudModerate2]

The ultimate problem with Trumpism trying to replace the dominant ideology of the GOP is that it didn't have a clear mandate to do so. Trump was a one man army who didn't build a grassroots movement to get elected representatives running on a Trumpist platform into congress beforehand. And he also didn't have the political capital going in to negotiate from a standpoint that would allow him to craft legislation based on his ideology. He garnered only 46% of the electorate and came in with poor approval ratings which have only gone down.

Also what exactly is Trumpism? Is it becasically an Americanized version of the National Front?

PM me tomorrow, because there are a series of posts by FuzzyBear, myself, and others that I feel adequately define what is "Trumpism." I'm too tired and lazy to find it now. I'm sorta burned out for the day on debate

You're going to quote something from FuzzyBear ?
God help us !

You seem to have a habit of calling out people without contributing more than a handful of poorly formatted sentences. Why don't you define Trumpism with more than four paragraphs and give me your perception of something for once?

Look who's talking as if he was "all high and mighty" ?
Your level of Atlas trolling (without any material contribution) makes mine look like a speck of dust.
Besides you don't want to hear my definition of trumpism ..... Virginia will surely ban me then.

[The Self]

There's no substantial difference between 'Trumpism' and 'Reaganism'. There could have been - Trump was uniquely positioned, among all Republican Presidential nominees, to endorse a Keynesian cornerstone like universal health care above the heads of his Party establishment - but this would have required the Trump movement to be a legitimately populist one, rather than a last madcap effort to staunch the self-destruction of the Reagan coalition.

I've recently made the argument that Trumpism, at least rhetorically, is the logical conclusion of Reaganism.

Which is extremely different from being something new on the political scene. And this is why 'Trumpism' is going to fail - it in itself isn't anything new, and what potential there is for something genuinely new (a kind of national collectivism, say) cannot be supported on the currently existing material premises of American society.

Trumpism is a limbo where the ideas that could power a genuine right-wing realignment go to die.

[The Other Castro]

RNC Chair McDaniel seems to think Trump is in trouble apparently.

Ronna RomneyMcDaniel @GOPChairwoman
Mueller's unfounded accusation against @POTUS changes nothing. There's still no proof of obstruction of justice.

https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/875163898751725569

[Green Line]

Spoiler Alert 🚨- He did it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

[KingSweden]

Trump refusing to run for a second term as the GOP implodes is highly probable.

I've been saying this for months. It's in everyone's best interests, and a necessity for Trumpism to survive as the replacement of Reaganism.

IF Trump implodes, the GOP will spend the next couple of decades in the wilderness searching for an identity...it won't become the party of Trumpism

The "party of trumpism" was a fad and is already dead.
It didn't even last 1 full year.
Many who barely supported pulling the lever for him in November are already deeply regretting their decision.
Men wearing high heel shoes in the 70's lasted much longer than trump.
PS: Ask KingSweden to show you those disco-era pictures he has of him in such shoes.

The what that I have of who?

[ProudModerate2]

Trump refusing to run for a second term as the GOP implodes is highly probable.

I've been saying this for months. It's in everyone's best interests, and a necessity for Trumpism to survive as the replacement of Reaganism.

IF Trump implodes, the GOP will spend the next couple of decades in the wilderness searching for an identity...it won't become the party of Trumpism

The "party of trumpism" was a fad and is already dead.
It didn't even last 1 full year.
Many who barely supported pulling the lever for him in November are already deeply regretting their decision.
Men wearing high heel shoes in the 70's lasted much longer than trump.
PS: Ask KingSweden to show you those disco-era pictures he has of him in such shoes.

The what that I have of who?

LMAO.
I was attempting to tease you. Didn't even know if you would catch/see my comment. LOL.
I don't know your age, but I was trying to be funny by characterizing you as a young dude in the 70's who wore high-heeled shoes to the disco dancing floor in the nightclubs of the past.
(Which was very common for males to do back then. It "was in." It was the style of that age. Like those huge bell-bottom pants.)
And was hoping you would share photos of such a thing, with us.
8-)

[Xing]

Hopefully this investigation won't take long.

[ProudModerate2]

Video clip.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told Anderson Cooper, "I told you so," when talking about The Washington Post's report that Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump for possible obstruction of justice.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/06/15/toobin-trump-investigated-told-you-so-ac-sot.cnn

[Dereich]

Hopefully this investigation won't take long.

A year would be amazingly brief; even concluding within two years strains credulity. No special investigator would do anythinguntil they had enough evidence to convict several times over. The investigation into Clinton for Whitewater didn't conclude until 2002, 8 years after it began. For some reference, This is how long other cases with independent counsel took.

[EnglishPete]

I don't think Congress will impeach Trump. It's GOP controlled and he would need to hemorrhage GOP support in order for GOP to impeach

I don't know.
It's too early to tell.
If Muller discloses massive and decisive evidence, then the GOP may have no choice.
Otherwise, Americans will be in complete shock and will vote many of them out, en masse, come 2018.

Would the GOP in face of massive evidence of misconduct defend trump?

We keep hearing about this 'massive evidence' of wrongdoing that's going to be emerging but never does. All the evidence the Dems need is that they don't like Trump. This is yet another Dem witch hunt. There isn't going to be any real evidence for collusion or obstruction because it didn't happen. Its just a political matter of getting enough Republicans to climb aboard with the witch hunt.

[EnglishPete]

The main Russia investigation of potential collusion probably would have spun in its heels and gone nowhere.

Wrong.

Political witch hunts never end with the witch hunters saying "well we have to admit it, we've got nothing". They would just drag it out and have it continue and continue until they got something. They've been forced to admit that they had nothing on Trump so their next line is "We've been forced to admit we had nothing on Trump. However the process by which we were forced to admit that is 'obstruction' so Catch - 22 we've now got something on him again"

The blatant disingenuousness of all this political theatre is really nothing to behold. Sentence first, verdict afterwards. The sentence of this 'investigation' has already been decided, impeachment. They're now just looking for a verdict to get the sentence they want. If you honestly believe that the conclusion of this 'investigation' was going to be determined by the evidence above the political goals they you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Beezer]

There's no substantial difference between 'Trumpism' and 'Reaganism'. There could have been - Trump was uniquely positioned, among all Republican Presidential nominees, to endorse a Keynesian cornerstone like universal health care above the heads of his Party establishment - but this would have required the Trump movement to be a legitimately populist one, rather than a last madcap effort to staunch the self-destruction of the Reagan coalition.

I've recently made the argument that Trumpism, at least rhetorically, is the logical conclusion of Reaganism.

But anywho, this thread is about Mueller. Sorry for getting this off topic.

Trumpism is the logical conclusion of the last half a century of the GOP's ideological turn. It stands in the tradition of "Wallaceism" which of course was incorporated by numerous leading Republicans into the party to varying degrees. It is rooted in racial conservatism, status anxiety and the belief that the country is now run by groups that only funnel money to minorities. If you look at comments made at Wallace rallies in 1968 you will find a remarkable similarity to those made in 2016 at Trump events.

Trump is moreover an anti-government populist in a party that's been making the case for over 50 years that more government is always bad, that DC is a cesspool of corrupt politicians and that the people can never be wrong. Of course it was only a matter of time until someone turned the focus on the Republican elite itself - many of whom have been in DC for decades.

[HAnnA MArin County]

#LockHimUp! #LockHimUp! #LockHimUp! #LockHimUp! *times infinity*

Orange really is the new black, in more ways than one now. The Fear Leader is already tweeting about it. Sad!

How many more days until Mueller is fired?

[The_Doctor]

There's no substantial difference between 'Trumpism' and 'Reaganism'. There could have been - Trump was uniquely positioned, among all Republican Presidential nominees, to endorse a Keynesian cornerstone like universal health care above the heads of his Party establishment - but this would have required the Trump movement to be a legitimately populist one, rather than a last madcap effort to staunch the self-destruction of the Reagan coalition.

I've recently made the argument that Trumpism, at least rhetorically, is the logical conclusion of Reaganism.

But anywho, this thread is about Mueller. Sorry for getting this off topic.

I KNOW THIS IS WRONG but - I need to say this. Read the first two chapters of "Before the Storm" by Perlstein. I was shocked by the similarities to the Trumpist ideology before the realignment of 1980 modified it.

/End derailing thread.

[Hindsight was 2020]

An the idiot is tweeting about it

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

An the idiot is tweeting about it

And making it clear that he doesn't understand that he can be guilty of obstruction even if he isn't guilty of other illegal acts.

[ajc0918]

An the idiot is tweeting about it

Sen Thune rekts DJT:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

GOP lately has been getting tired of Trump's sh!t

Most people are. You can only con people for so long. Lock him up.

[The_Doctor]

As usual, Donald Trump cannot resist stomping all over himself and making a gigantic mess because he's incapable of a rational strategy. And yes, he confirms he's under investigation for obstruction of justice.

[The_Doctor]

Oh, Trump is also throwing Congressional Republicans under the bus to avoid impeachment. He knows that if he firms up his 39%, he can avoid impeachment (or try to; I'm skeptical that if Mueller returns an obstruction charge to recommend to Congress, that Trumpy survives), but Congressional Republicans need to win like 8-10% more to avoid huge losses next year. That's why Thune responded the way he did. They cannot afford to adopt Trump's strategy to survive 2018. It's death for them to continue Trump's electoral strategy.

Trump doesn't care and doesn't want to change. The GOP never measurably supported him in 2016 and he doesn't care as long as they are forced to defend him against impeachment or any measure of justice. He may even view an opposition Congress as somewhat more favorable conditions (assuming he survives impeachment).

Basically, Trump's strategy isn't to broaden his base. It's to make his base even more fanatical and to avoid anything meaningful in terms of consequences. The GOP's problem, in 2018, is that they need to keep the broad base of reluctant Trumpers and hardcore Trump people.

Is this a perfect situation? Absolutely not. The Democrats could well impeach Trump in 2019 and garner enough momentum to push it through the Senate. Does Donald Trump think that far ahead? Since one of his tweets got him a special counsel, highly unlikely not.

[The_Doctor]

There's evidence that Trump would be better off broadening his base but at this point, it may just be simply too late. The opposition is too entrenched at this point and Trump's window of opportunity may have permanently closed. Nevertheless, if he acted sane and Presidential, he would be able to creep back up to 45%, which would foreclose impeachment.

But I'm not sure at this point if he has a reasonable strategy in place that has a favorable outcome that doesn't end in a one term failed Presidency or impeachment. At this point, the damage to his Presidency is very considerable. I'm not seeing a success story at this point.

For a success story Trump would need to be completely exonerated, his underlings escaping indictment (if Flynn, Manafort, and Kushner are indicted, it really reflects hugely badly on him), lead a strong economic recovery after the 2018-2019 recession), and Trump would need to master the fundamentals of governing.

The Trumpists don't realize this -  if criminal and unethical behavior doesn't nab him, a weak economy would bring him down or his incompetence. Or a mix of two out of three variables, or all of the above. They can excuse him all they want but again, it's a case of them literally hoping it's a one off each time, not a consistent pattern of governing and behaving. They can't literally admit that this President is bad because it would reflect poorly on their decision making skills in 2016 and their tribal loyalties. And their hate of liberals is so great that they can't just recant.

[The_Doctor]

Edit: Let me reformat my rant.

In the event of Mueller returning a obstruction of justice charge against Donald Trump and impeachment hearings beginning in the House (either under the GOP in 2018 or Democrats in 2019) ...

I should point out that Clinton survived impeachment because he had a 73% approval rating because of the strong economy of the late 1990s. With the anemic recovery under Obama and that weak wage growth of the late 2010s, do you really think Trump would be able to command the same loyalty among Congressional Republicans? Especially if his ratings are below 35% and there's a recession or a very weak recovery?

Honestly, people, we have 4.3% unemployment, and he's sitting at 38% approval. What do you think is going to happen when the economic recession hits?