96th Weak of Dingbattery!

[JackLuis]

‘He took crazy to 11’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe unloads on Trump’s weekend of ‘delusional dingbattery’

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said President Donald Trump sank to new depths over the weekend with his comments about the California wildfires, the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the midterm elections.

The president suggested the fires were essentially a housekeeping issue, he attacked the military leaders who killed the notorious terrorist leader and insisted Republicans had not been dealt an election loss.

“He did a lot of irrational things over the course of the last two years,” Heilemann added. “We noted it at the time. It does feel as though, as it has for all of us only we all got there a little quicker, the scale of the defeat for the party, the depth of it, the breadth of it and the implications of it have finally sunk in, and the more they sink in for him the more he goes into delusional dingbattery.”

Former FBI agent: CIA leaked Khashoggi report because no one trusts Trump to ‘act on the truth’

A philosopher explains why Donald Trump’s perpetual stream of falsehoods is more than just lying

Vanity Fair reporter: Trump is worried Don Jr will get indicted — but not for the reason you might think

 

[JackLuis]

Donald Trump fires back at Chief Justice John Roberts: You do have ‘Obama judges’ and judiciary is not ‘independent’

President Donald Trump spent his first day on holiday at Mar-a-Lago tweeting up a storm. On Wednesday afternoon he picked a fight with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who’d rebuked the president’s attack on “Obama judges” the previous day.

According to Roberts, the U.S. does not have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
SPONSORED

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump tweeted. “It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

Also Donnie, it might be unwise to piss off the guy who will determine if you go to jail?

 

[KeithD]

Also Donnie, it might be unwise to piss off the guy who will determine if you go to jail?

Not that Trump has ever understood that point.

 

[JackLuis]

CNN commentator blasts insecure Trump for ‘weakening’ the American presidency

On Wednesday, CNN commentator Carrie Cordero said that President Donald Trump will weaken the office of the presidency.

Trump attacked Chief Justice John Roberts on Twitter after Roberts rebuked Trump’s claim that there are “Obama judges.”

-
Cordero added, “This is one moment in time. This is just today where it happened to be the chief justice. This is part of the broader understanding of government and the president doesn’t seem to have that understanding. What he consistently is doing is trying to push down the other branches of government.”

“I think it’s going to backfire. I think eventually the institutions are going to prevail and he will end up leaving the presidency weaker,” she said.

In January Trump will learn just how much he is dependant on the House of Representatives. They control the budget, mostly, and how much the President can spend on his Walls.

 

[JackLuis]

Trump biographer David Cay Johnston outlines the president’s greatest fears with Democrats investigating him

With news that the Trump Organization will soon be under investigation by the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, a biographer who’s researched the president’s finances for years outlined exactly what he has to be afraid of.

“Inflows of money from Russian mobsters and other criminal elements” are likely to be chief among Trump’s concerns, biographer David Cay Johnston told CNN’s John Berman on Wednesday night.
-
With Cohen and Weisselberg’s cooperation, prosecutors may soon learn if Trump “took improper income tax deductions [and] whether he violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

They may also be able to solve “the unanswered questions about how much, if any, of the $10 billion stolen in Kazakhstan ended up with Donald Trump.”

How about the Domestic Corrupt Practices Act?

 

[My I]

Well....

 

[JackLuis]

A new court ruling is set to destroy the main Republican talking point about Russian ‘collusion’

One of the most common defenses of President Donald Trump and his associates as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has heated up is that “collusion” is not a crime, even if Mueller can prove that it took place. It’s a favorite claim of Trump and Rudy Giuliani.

To some degree, this is just wordplay. There is no federal statute that explicitly defines “collusion” or makes it a crime, so of course that would not be literally spelled out on any of the Mueller team’s dozens of indictments, convictions, and plea agreements with U.S. and Russian suspects.
-
Friedrich did not agree. She denied Concord’s request to dismiss the charges, noting that established law does not require prosecutors to prove any underlying crime to bring a charge of conspiracy. In other words, she held that a conspiracy to interfere with U.S. elections can itself be a crime — and effectively laid out a way for Mueller to prosecute Russian actors over “collusion.”

Between this ruling and the fact that there are clear lines of evidence of involvement between Russia and the Trump campaign, it is getting untenable to claim that collusion isn’t a crime — or that the effort to uncover it will not take members of Trump’s inner circle down with it.

 

[JackLuis]

‘One justice is not waiting to take a first punch’: Here’s why Trump’s attack on John Roberts was a big mistake

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump picked a fight with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, scorning his remarks that judges do not serve presidents and telling him to “study the judiciary more” in a tweet.

-
But more than that, it was a profoundly stupid move from Trump. As MSNBC’s Ari Melber explained, Trump’s attack on the chief justice adds to his pattern of contempt for the law and impulse to bully independent government officials into giving him what he wants — which could make it that much easier for someone like Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lay out a case he committed obstruction of justice.
-
If Trump were to be impeached, Roberts would preside over his trial in the Senate, although in that case, he would not actually have power over the verdict, which would be decided by a Senate vote. But Roberts might also have to rule on Trump’s fate earlier in the process — if, for example, the Supreme Court has to decide whether Trump must comply with a subpoena from Mueller.

“At least one justice is not waiting to take the first punch on behalf of that institution,” Melber concluded, “But is instead moving first for judicial independence, and clearly against Donald Trump.”

Beware the counter punching court, Donnie boy.

 

[YDB95]

You can bet Trump has no idea how an impeachment trial works. (I suppose most Americans don't, really, but then most Americans aren't the president.)

 

[Rightguide]

‘One justice is not waiting to take a first punch’: Here’s why Trump’s attack on John Roberts was a big mistake



Beware the counter punching court, Donnie boy.

There isn't going to be a trial in the Senate. Impeachment articles will be DOA.

 

[YDB95]

There isn't going to be a trial in the Senate. Impeachment articles will be DOA.

The House passes impeachment articles (that is, it performs impeachments). If it does so, the Senate cannot simply ignore them. You are probably right that the Senate will never convict Twitler, but it can't not have a trial if so ordered by the House.