The constitution is screwed

Written By: - Date published: 4:10 pm, January 31st, 2017 - 117 comments
Categories: us politics - Tags: , ,

Trump goes full fascist and fires the acting Attorney General for daring to question his Muslim Ban order.

https://twitter.com/LizzyShaps/status/826254560897310720

https://twitter.com/nat_nieIsen/status/826079166470688768

117 comments on “The constitution is screwed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    31 January 2017 at 4:16 pm

    I wonder if those who so passionately defended Trump before the election feel the same way about him now?

    • Carolyn_nth 1.2
      31 January 2017 at 4:29 pm

      My thinking exactly, micky. Interesting to know how many are cheering and how many are having voters’ remorse? Sorting the proto fascists from the misguided?

    • Andre 1.3
      31 January 2017 at 4:41 pm

      Wonder if Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon et al still feel “there’s no difference between Trump and Clinton”

      • marty mars 1.3.1
        31 January 2017 at 4:52 pm

        Yep that joke just fell flat. So many fooled by so little.

      • rhinocrates 1.3.2
        31 January 2017 at 6:42 pm

        We now know that what they meant was that they felt that the differences between Trump and Clinton weren’t a problem because they didn’t think that they would effect them personally.

        It’s the very definition of privilege.

      • Bill 1.3.3
        31 January 2017 at 7:29 pm

        So did either Susan Sarandon or Jill Stein claim (as you quote) that “there’s no difference between Trump and Clinton?”

        No. They didn’t.

        Jill Stein certainly made the point that she reckoned Clinton was far more of a hawk. And Sarandon said something along the lines that she wasn’t prepared to settle for the lesser of two evils (she’d backed Sanders).

        If you want to pursue this exchange in light of your outright lies, I very strongly recommend that you secure verifiable quotes for any future assertions.

        There’s a huge difference between someone from the US who voted for Trump (and a variety of reasons as to why someone may have thrown their vote that way) and people from the US who weren’t going to simply sit back and quietly suck up five years of Clinton.

        But if you’re intention is just to alienate everyone and everything that didn’t ‘get in behind’ Clinton, then you’re going the right way about it. Fucked if I know what purpose you think might be served by that tact though.

        • Andre 1.3.3.1
          31 January 2017 at 7:59 pm

          Apologies for my poor paraphrasing of things they both did say. Stein did say “not different enough”. Sarandon did say “so what difference does it make”

          http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/jill-stein-hillary-trump-presidency-160928210338543.html

          http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-says-shed-probably-vote-for-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton/

          And I still wonder if they still feel good about the fact that Clinton’s loss in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin was by fewer votes than Stein got in each of those states. Hell, in Wisconsin and Michigan, Clinton’s loss was by less than Stein vote increase from 2012 to 2016.

          • Bill 1.3.3.1.1
            31 January 2017 at 9:01 pm

            And the full quote from Stein is “not different enough to save your job, save your life, or save the planet.” Followed by “”We have two ways to commit suicide here and I say no thank you to them both.”

            That’s really very different to what you’re looking to portray. See – it’s really difficult to go from the full quote to “I still wonder if they still feel good about the fact that Clinton’s loss in…” (my emphasis)

            When did Stein (or Sarandon) ever say they felt good about Trump becoming President? If Stein felt good about it, then why did she pursue recounts?

            And did you actually watch or listen to the Sarendon video that the article claims to quote from? She absolutely did not claim (as the article reports) that she’d “likely vote for Donald Trump over Hilary Clinton” or say that “she might vote for Trump over Clinton”…

            But that was in March, and we all know how that particular ‘Project Fear’ was being played out by the more establishment actors..

            But anyway Andre, you go right on ahead and keep making stuff up that you know isn’t true because in your world view or political view, anyone who didn’t explicitly back a Clinton Presidency is an enemy and a supporter of Trump.

          • weka 1.3.3.1.2
            31 January 2017 at 9:09 pm

            Are you saying that Clinton lost the presidency because of Stein?

            • Andre 1.3.3.1.2.1
              31 January 2017 at 9:15 pm

              I think the way Stein ran her campaign was one of many small slices that added up to Clinton falling short. Although it probably wasn’t quite enough to tip the balance as a single factor.

              • Spikeyboy …
                31 January 2017 at 10:21 pm

                No one has any god given right to anybody elses vote. Especially Clinton had no god given right to Steins votes. If they voted for Stein thats what they meant. Not that if she werent there they would have voted for Clinton. It beggers belief that supporters of Clinton can claim the supporters of others.

                • adam …
                  31 January 2017 at 10:52 pm

                  It’s alright Andre is a unreconstructed liberal, who can’t face the fact that the democrat’s are losers, not only the presidential race, but all over the USA the democrats have lost elections for 6 odd years, badly.

                  Maybe it’s because they are evil. That type of evil that knows all the right words, and does a nice job whitewashing the world, but are evil by the fact they do nothing good. As it stands, they fact they locked up a generation of black men, they take corporate money, they have no moral center. For them it’s OK to be hawkish, for them to smash the economy for the sake of the corporate oligarchic, and to denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.

                  Just remember if you challenge them, you are nothing but a red neck hick. Oh wait that politics has not worked for 6 years at least, and still they do it. Then have the gall to label anyone who calls them on it -destructive.

        • Richard Rawshark 1.3.3.2
          31 January 2017 at 9:07 pm

          So Bill still miscomprehending people, butting in and telling them off I see.

          Ever though the poster meant JUST what the poster said..

          “there’s no difference between Trump and Clinton” is what she said, when she said, what you said she did in context, however do you not see he means when she said that in THAT context, would she still think there was no difference or would she now, still have wanted Bernie but have put it a different way?

          Maybe, maybe not, but you seriously, you need to get a grip and kerb your penchant for thinking you know what other people really mean. Arrogance, that’s a NAT trait. Welcome to your future party, you’ll fit right in.

          Drops mic, out of here.

          [read the Policy. It’s not ok to attack authors. You have to drop this Richard or expect a long ban simply so that moderators don’t have to keep dealing with it. – weka]

          [ By an accident of timing, Weka just saved you’re sorry arse from a lengthy spell on the side-lines. Exorcise whatever stupid buzzing in your bonnet it is that you have about me Richard.(And maybe try for half way coherent comments too?)] – Bill

          • Andre 1.3.3.2.1
            31 January 2017 at 9:11 pm

            Richard, I value hearing what you have to say here. If you want to do something for me, please don’t self-martyr yourself.

            • weka 1.3.3.2.1.1
              31 January 2017 at 9:17 pm

              +1 I hope that this will stop from RR now, because I also value his comments on TS.

            • Wayne 1.3.3.2.1.2
              31 January 2017 at 10:43 pm

              Andre is right. The last 10 days have shown the real difference between Clinton and Trump. You would have to be an idiot to think the US would be where is today if Clinton was President.

              And I bet a lot of the demonstrators thought they were too cool to vote for Clinton. Well they are reaping the consequences of their foolishness.

              • adam …
                31 January 2017 at 11:12 pm

                But who cares, at the end of the day we don’t have h.r.c – so it just more tired distraction from people who have not accepted a h.r.c and democrats lost.

                Wild conspiracy theories about a better h.r.c as pous, is the worst type of jibba jabba.

              • emergency mike …
                1 February 2017 at 5:05 am

                I think the Democrats thinking they were too cool to care about the red states and their problems might have a bit more to do with it. ‘It wuz the Green party voters what made Trump president’ I think not.

    • Siobhan 1.4
      31 January 2017 at 4:44 pm

      Who do you mean exactly micky?.
      Trumps voters are surely all still like pigs in mud, in fact my guess would be they are loving every minute of this…for now….ditto all the pundit that where behind him.

      The people who should be feeling ‘remorse’ are the mainstream and Liberal media, who gave Trump free publicity, back when we/they thought Trumps run was just a bit of light entertainment.
      Back then the media wanted to talk about the orange orangutan rather than even mentioning Bernie…. or even Hillary, strangely enough. I guess they were rightly nervous of her massive pile of bad luggage.

    • Anne 1.5
      31 January 2017 at 4:50 pm

      Don’t seem to hear so much from them these days.

    • Spikeyboy 1.6
      31 January 2017 at 6:07 pm

      I would say that many were not supporting Trump but simply pointing out the very small gap between Trump and Clinton. The ease with which Trump has been able to apply his mad plan shows how corrupted the normal checks and balances had become. Instead of strengthening them Obama whittled them even further than Bush had done. Trump is not something that has just popped up. The positive reaction to neoliberalism was suppressed by Clinton (Sanders) which left only the negative. You can say that Clinton wouldn’t have been as bad but you dont know and never will and none of the terrible consequences of Us imperialism would have been dealt with. On the briight side the US now has an opportunity to bring real democracy to their country by uniting against this dictator while there is still a civil society. Yes it will be painful but no more than Libya, Syria, Yemen, Honduras…

      • red-blooded 1.6.1
        31 January 2017 at 6:42 pm

        So, would Clinton have ordered a ban on people from selected countries entering the US? Would she have defied the Supreme Court or fired the AG for refusing to endorse and defend unconstitutional orders? No, of course she wouldn’t.

        Clinton may not have been the candidate that many on this site would have chosen for the Dems – she may have been “business as usual” to a large extent, but she sure as hell wouldn’t have been threatening the foundations of the American democratic state as Trump and his coterie are. The “small gap” argument looks pretty threadbare seen in this context.

        I don’t know many American voters, but one I do know voted Trump because he thought Clinton wasn’t a “true Democrat”. I hope he’s confronting the fact that he helped to empower this demagogue and visit this dreadfulness on his country.

        • One Two 1.6.1.1
          31 January 2017 at 8:49 pm

          Nonsensical comment

          It is impossible to know what Clinton would, or would not be doing, or do!

          • Psycho Milt 1.6.1.1.1
            31 January 2017 at 9:45 pm

            Nonsensical comment

            Only to someone who considers Trump’s actions as President to be so well within the bounds of normal that it’s impossible to know whether Clinton would have done any different. I guess you are one of those someones, but hopefully it’s a very small group.

            • Spikeyboy 1.6.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2017 at 10:31 pm

              I wouldnt consider presidents that make up lists of people to murder by drone as normal either or is it ok when they have brown or black skins and live in far off countries? Is it only bad when the president starts doing bad things in USA? The point is that Trump is building on what has been started by Bush and accellerated by Obama and Clinton. This is also the case with the immigration ban
              https://m.mic.com/articles/166845/the-list-of-muslim-countries-trump-wants-to-ban-was-compiled-by-the-obama-administration#.a1WowFaHB

              • joe90 …
                31 January 2017 at 10:56 pm

                This is also the case with the immigration ban

                Obama didn’t ban anybody.

                He introduced the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act to restrict access to the Visa Waiver Program that allowed citizens from 38 countries visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.

                And unlike Trump’s EO, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act didn’t impact green card holders or anyone with a visa and didn’t affect refugees who had already gone through the vetting process.

                • Spikeyboy …
                  1 February 2017 at 12:15 am

                  No but he identified the target countries and got the ball rolling. He began the lie that it was antiterrorism measures when in reality it was countries the Usa wanted to subject to the imperial thumb. Any list of terrorist countries that does not include Saudi Arabia ( does this really still need endless repeating?) is a sham. Obama started the sham and no one said anything. At least now people are paying attention although the death of 8 year old Nawar Al-Awlaki in Yemen bleeding to death from multiple Us Seal bullet wounds over a period of 2 hours in a mission initiated by Obama and signed off by Trump seems to have gotten past most people. She was one of about 30 mostly women and children killed by panicing seals. If you wont recognise how bad it was before Trump then nothing much will change after. We’ll all just relax and go back to bed again and leave Mike Pence to fix things??!

                  • joe90 …
                    2 February 2017 at 8:17 pm

                    mission initiated by Obama

                    And vetoed.

                    The operation was launched to gather intelligence on suspected operations by al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula (AQAP), according to Thomas. Planning for the raid “started months before”, under Barack Obama’s administration, but was “not previously approved”, he said.

                    Thomas said he did not know why the prior administration did not authorize the operation, but said the Obama administration had effectively exercised a “pocket veto” over it.

                    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki

                    signed off by Trump

                    Because ego.
                    /

                    With two of his closest advisers, Jared Kushner and Stephen K. Bannon, joining the dinner at the White House along with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Mr. Trump approved sending in the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, hoping the raid early last Sunday would scoop up cellphones and laptop computers that could yield valuable clues about one of the world’s most dangerous terrorist groups. Vice President Mike Pence and Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser, also attended the dinner

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html

          • Wayne 1.6.1.1.2
            31 January 2017 at 10:45 pm

            Don’t be ridiculous!
            Who on earth could now seriously think Clinton would be as bad as Trump.

        • mikesh 1.6.1.2
          1 February 2017 at 8:36 am

          A temporary ban until tighter controls are sorted out hardly “threatens the foundations of the American Democratic state”; and as for Yates, she should have resigned, and then she’d have been free to make whatever comments she wanted.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.7
      31 January 2017 at 6:53 pm

      Who cares what they think right now?

      The study of whether and how they think may well be of interest to Neurobiology; we have more pressing issues.

    • Glenn 1.8
      31 January 2017 at 7:08 pm

      Mentioned to a person I ran into who is connected to NZ’s judicial system what I thought about Trump.
      He replied “Trump really loves America”.
      I said “what about dropping Obamacare”?
      His reply “only affects about 20 million, and lets face it they are down at the bottom so why should anyone care.”
      I gave up then. How can you argue with stupid ignorance?…no no no it’s not ignorance it’s fucking ..
      “I have an important job and make lots of money and don’t give a fuck about pond scum”.

  2. Brutus Iscariot 2
    31 January 2017 at 4:20 pm

    Since when do you care about the US Constitution, eh?

    Anyway, the A-G is effectively the government’s lawyer and serves entirely at the pleasure of the President. The current office holder was always a placeholder until Trump’s nominee is confirmed in a couple of week’s time.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      31 January 2017 at 4:22 pm

      I thought righties believed in the rule of law. Sacking lawyers until you find one to agree with you is a sure fire way to a facist state and the destruction of the rule of law.

      • Brutus Iscariot 2.1.1
        31 January 2017 at 4:26 pm

        The Administration gets to choose their appointee. She wasn’t his appointee, she was a placeholder until Sessions was confirmed.

        The A-G is part of the Executive branch and thus serves the President. There is absolutely no breach of rule of law or separation of powers.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          31 January 2017 at 4:28 pm

          The AG swears to uphold the constitution not POTUS. Your argument would mean that Trump could do whatever he liked.

          • Brutus Iscariot 2.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2017 at 4:43 pm

            It’s grandstanding – she’s making a name for herself to secure a plum Democratic role. Trump’s order is perfectly constitutional. Even if the First Amendment could be held to apply to non US citizens, the order covers less than a quarter by number of Muslim – majority countries.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2017 at 6:02 pm

              You’re an expert on the US constitution now, are you? Neither am I.

              Nice to see your true colours on display though.

            • Richard McGrath 2.1.1.1.1.2
              2 February 2017 at 8:01 pm

              Absolutely agree, BI. Any carry-over Obama appointees serve at the pleasure of the duly elected President who can sack them on a whim. That’s simply the way it is. The Constitution, rule of law, etc., have nothing to with it.

          • Wayne 2.1.1.1.2
            31 January 2017 at 7:01 pm

            The courts are the real protectors of rights, not the AG whose primary role is to be the chief lawyer of the government (though one also hopes the AG will provide considered counsel to the government).

            I expect that the Higher Courts will draw the line on these executive orders, at least by paring them back.

            In just 10 days Trump has broken all the conventions that hold government together.

            It is hard to imagine he can go on like this without blowing the system up. At some point the Republicans in Congress, or at least a key group of them, are going to say “Enough, you were elected to change things, not wreck them.”

            Not to say he gets impeached but rather he won’t be able to get things through Congress unless he acts reasonably.

            • Macro 2.1.1.1.2.1
              31 January 2017 at 7:27 pm

              At some point the Republicans in Congress, or at least a key group of them, are going to say “Enough, you were elected to change things, not wreck them.”

              Not to say he gets impeached but rather he won’t be able to get things through Congress unless he acts reasonably.

              Yes I’m also wondering just how long it will take the lawmakers to decide that it is they whose job it is to make the law – not Trump’s. Also – just how they will go about making that point? I think you are right that initially it will be a slowing down and holding up of Congress. Appointments such as the new AG might be a good start. They need to act soon, or the horse will have well and truly bolted.

        • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.1.1.2
          31 January 2017 at 5:38 pm

          Yep, she was Obama’s AG, not Trump’s. He was just keeping her around until he got around to appointing someone else. Trump would have replaced her soon enough anyway. She just hurried him along. No breach of separation of powers!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.2.1
            31 January 2017 at 5:44 pm

            You’re right: there’s nothing to see here at all. It’s good to acquiesce to authority: that’s what personal responsibility is all about*.

            *terms and conditions may vary.

            • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.1.1.2.1.1
              31 January 2017 at 6:01 pm

              Do you really think Obama wouldn’t have done the same thing with regards to a Bush-appointed AG who was being a thorn in his side? If she had been a Trump-appointed AG then cause for concern. Politics!

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                31 January 2017 at 6:18 pm

                They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind.

                Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

                Erstwhile right wing touchstones become embarrassing when authority beckons. Have a nice day.

                • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                  31 January 2017 at 7:00 pm

                  “Have a nice day.”

                  Awww. That’s the nicest thing you’ve said ever said to me, OAB.

          • joe90 2.1.1.2.2
            31 January 2017 at 6:16 pm

            Yep, she was Obama’s AG, not Trump’s.

            She took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, not Obama.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

  3. esoteric pineapples 3
    31 January 2017 at 4:26 pm

    This commentary is interesting as it explains how easy it actually is to remove a President from office thanks to an amendment to the Constitution that was introduced after Kennedy was assissinated. It turns out that the vice president and members of his cabinet can simply say he or she is unfit for office and he is removed. The president can say he is fit and get reinstated with the vice president again saying he isn’t, followed by a vote in congress and that’s it. It could be all done in just a matter of days. However, in the present circumstance it will be the Republican party which makes this decision which would be quite possible if they and the deep state believe Trump is a threat to the survival of the United States.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnnj_YjdJgs&feature=share

    Then America would have a Christian fundamentalist as President supported by billionaires so the only improvement would be the level of stability.

    • Andre 3.1
      31 January 2017 at 4:37 pm

      If the president fights his removal from office using the 25th and it goes to Congress, then both the House and the Senate have to vote by a 2/3 majority to remove him. This is a higher hurdle than impeachment, where a simple majority in the House and 2/3 majority in the Senate does the trick.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

    • Andre 3.2
      31 January 2017 at 4:47 pm

      “Then America would have a Christian fundamentalist as President supported by billionaires so the only improvement would be the level of stability.”

      From a purely New Zealand perspective we’d be back to business as usual, which would be an improvement over the chaos coming. From the perspective of progressive Americans, they would be facing stealthy but competent evil, which is a lot harder to fight than what’s happening now.

      • garibaldi 3.2.1
        31 January 2017 at 5:32 pm

        Well you have to admit Trump is doing a good job of destroying America ( as was predicted).

        • Richard McGrath 3.2.1.1
          31 January 2017 at 10:06 pm

          Early days yet: to my knowledge he’s brought some jobs back to America and the DOW index broke 20k for the first time, which doesn’t sound like destruction to me. However tariffs and trade barriers won’t help the average American, and Trump would be wise to abandon these

    • Nick K 3.3
      31 January 2017 at 11:07 pm

      President David Palmer lost that vote on 24, series 2 I believe.

  4. Ad 4
    31 January 2017 at 4:29 pm

    It’s a mistake to call this fascism.

    Sally Yates only had days to run, so it was a good, brave symbolic action by itself.

    But she knew she was going to get crushed like a bug.
    So the President had the more powerful symbol to respond with.

    White House must be a helluva a place to work in right now.

    • GregJ 4.1
      1 February 2017 at 10:23 am

      Trump was an idiot – he created a martyr when he didn’t need to. He could have comfortably sat back and waited until Sessions was confirmed. He’s too thin-skinned though – can he sustain 4 years of counter-attacking every time he is opposed?

  5. Ethica 5
    31 January 2017 at 4:31 pm

    Jim Mora and Panel being very sympathetic to Trump and supporters this afternoon. Blaming Obama, liberals and all the other tired excuses. Here is real ‘Democracy is Under Attack’ territory and they seem to be quite OK with it.

    • Anne 5.1
      31 January 2017 at 4:58 pm

      I heard part of the panel discussion and didn’t have the impression they were being particularly sympathetic to Trump. They do however like to play ‘gentlemen and ladies’ on that programme which leaves them open to criticism.

      Dear oh dear, they would be shocked to their little cotton socks if they ever wandered over to The Standard. 😈

  6. Tarquin 6
    31 January 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Political grandstanding. She played straight in to Trumps hands and came out looking stupid.

    • Red 6.1
      31 January 2017 at 5:13 pm

      Yep outrage for sake of out rage AG got exactly what she wants as a leftie martyr, new job, media attention and tv commentator gigs, university lectures at a nice little fee for years to come Give it to her though, smart, beats a quite little resignation in a few weeks time

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1
        31 January 2017 at 8:09 pm

        That’s right! God damn her personal responsibility for making you look bad!

        • Richard McGrath 6.1.1.1
          31 January 2017 at 10:08 pm

          How on earth does that relate to the comment(s) above?

          • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1
            1 February 2017 at 11:19 am

            It’s a human thing. You wouldn’t get it.

            • Richard McGrath 6.1.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2017 at 8:04 pm

              Personal responsibility is irrelevant in this issue, it was a simple case of obeying directives or facing the consequences. Aw, cute little leftie martyr.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                2 February 2017 at 8:09 pm

                She took an oath. She disobeyed an order and took the “consequences” (local and international approval and regard).

                Ever taken any oaths, Dick? I bet you broke them.

                • Richard McGrath …
                  2 February 2017 at 8:13 pm

                  Nice diversion from the subject matter at hand, OAB.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 February 2017 at 8:19 pm

                    The subject matter is personal responsibility, which you pay lip service to and fail at. That’s partly because it’s a false construct that only exists in your amygdala, but I digress.

                    It’s also kind of incompatible with “obeying orders”, eh. Don’t let the cognitive dissonance hit you on your way out.

    • mpledger 6.2
      31 January 2017 at 5:41 pm

      Plump had no alternative to fire her or else he would look like a weak idiot. Now he just looks like an incompetent fascist.

  7. joe90 7
    31 January 2017 at 5:02 pm

    21st century Saal-Schutz?.

    Flying a large “Trump” flag, a mysterious convoy of military vehicles rolled down Interstate 65 through Louisville on Sunday morning. But nobody is claiming it.

    A spokesman for Ft. Knox, Patrick Hodges, said it wasn’t theirs.

    Same for the Kentucky National Guard, said Maj. Stephen Martin, director of public affairs.

    http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/01/30/military-convoy-trump-flag-rolls-through/97255844/

    • Andre 7.1
      31 January 2017 at 5:08 pm

      Hmmm, DeVos … Prince … Blackwater …

    • NZJester 7.2
      31 January 2017 at 11:51 pm

      The talk is the convoy might have belonged to one of the private military contractors. unlike the military who must protect the US constitution, they will do whatever the US president asks of them for money, no matter how against the Geneva convention it is. As they are not really bound by US military law and some in the past have been given immunity from crimes committed in countries outside the US, they are a very dangerous thing for Trump to have at his beck and call. The week International laws introduced to defining what a mercenary actually is allows these guys to label themselves Military Contractors instead of the Mercenaries they are under the original definition of the word.

  8. joe90 8
    31 January 2017 at 5:10 pm

    Another enemy identified.

    BREAKING: President Trump dismisses Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Daniel Ragsdale— BNO News (@BNONews) January 31, 2017

    https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/826266353132826624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

  9. joe90 9
    31 January 2017 at 5:45 pm

    Stacking the deck.

    The next U.S. atty in line of succession was not Boente, but Zach Fardon. Did @POTUS go shopping for one who would follow orders?— AltDOJ (@alt_doj) January 31, 2017

    https://twitter.com/alt_doj/status/826258409271881728

    • Sacha 9.1
      31 January 2017 at 7:37 pm

      Nah. Jeff Sessions is only a few days away from being confirmed for the role by compliant House repugs. Chump would take whoever could step in at short notice.

  10. McFlock 10
    31 January 2017 at 5:46 pm

    Deary, deary me – FDR to Nixon in less than two weeks.

  11. Skeptic 11
    31 January 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I think all those Trump supporters are just starting to wake up to the fact that they’ve gone a step too far. They’ve actually elected someone who acts illegally and unconstitutionally. Firing an ethical lawyer for doing nothing more than obeying her oath of office will have ramifications way. way beyond the immediate. Look for institutional resistance to the Executive – Trump won’t get anything done from about the end of this week.

    • McFlock 11.1
      31 January 2017 at 6:24 pm

      Funnily enough, it seems that many of his most rabid supporters were, twenty years ago, aligned with the crowd who were paranoid that the federal government was going to tear up the constitution and send good honest ‘merkins into FEMA death camps.

      irony.

      • emergency mike 11.1.1
        1 February 2017 at 4:50 am

        Same paranoids urged each other to buy guns to protect themselves from the government. Lots and lots of guns.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2
      31 January 2017 at 7:54 pm

      Trump won’t get anything done from about the end of this week

      I hope that’s true. The alternative is that different arms of the state(s) take sides and (after an uneasy truce) conflict ensues.

  12. joe90 12
    31 January 2017 at 6:01 pm

    Yates message Justice Department lawyers before she was axed.

    On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and
    refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a
    number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to
    determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
    My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through
    administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before
    they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a
    proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take
    account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of
    an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address
    whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
    Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing
    reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as
    leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position
    of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of
    what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that
    the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to
    always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of
    the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the
    Executive Order is lawful.
    Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of
    Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become
    convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

    http://documents.latimes.com/message-acting-attorney-general/

    • Macro 12.1
      31 January 2017 at 6:56 pm

      My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to
      always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

      Yeah she was just “grandstanding”.

      /sarc

  14. Morrissey 14
    31 January 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Don’t despair. There are still intelligent and caring Americans…

    http://normanfinkelstein.com/2017/01/30/worth-remembering/

  16. Paul Campbell 16
    31 January 2017 at 7:38 pm

    here’s a clip from Sally Yates’ senate confirmation hearing in which she was asked about the test she just passed:

    https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826289013891821568

    And check out just which Senator is asking that very question ….

  17. Incognito 17
    31 January 2017 at 10:01 pm

    So “betraying” Trump’s Administration is a sackable offence. Apparently, Trump values loyalty but the big question is now becoming “above all?”. We may find out soon.

  18. adam 18
    31 January 2017 at 11:02 pm

    And still far too many are not over the fact the democrats and h.r.c are lossers. They lost. Get over it already.

    The truth is, there is a nut bag in office, that is not somthing new in the USA. Read a bit of history. Also the USA has been like this for a very long time, so I’m finding the angst and flagellation – sickening. Where were you when the USA locked up the male Black population? Where were you when they destroyed other nations? Where were you they handed the keys to the corporate oligarchs?

    Stop with the moaning – it’s tiresome, get out and organise!

    • Anthony 18.1
      31 January 2017 at 11:23 pm

      Adam
      Where were you when the USA locked up the male Black population?

      Many were protesting.

      Where were you when they destroyed other nations?

      Many were protesting and doing what they could

      Where were you they handed the keys to the corporate oligarchs?

      Many were protesting and doing what they could

      Where are you now Trump is hurting the vulnerable while himself being protecting by an entire military – we must stop!

      • adam 18.1.1
        31 January 2017 at 11:29 pm

        Then organise!

        It really is that simple.

        Me I’m offering advise and solidarity (you know internationalism, making them feel they are not alone) to my friends in the USA.

        What are you doing?

  19. McFlock 19
    1 February 2017 at 12:23 am

    The last time someone made up immigration control policy off the cuff without even running it by the border guards, people flooded over and ended up tearing down the Berlin wall.

    • Richard McGrath 19.1
      2 February 2017 at 8:16 pm

      That was emigration control. From memory, people trying to leave Socialist Germany were shot, immigrants from the free West were welcomed.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1
        2 February 2017 at 8:25 pm

        Whereas nowadays, US citizens are planning or actively seeking asylum from the USA, and refugees from Australian concentration camps seek refuge in Fiji.

        Meanwhile, the Social Democratic states prosper, unlike Flint Michigan.

  20. Maui 20
    1 February 2017 at 6:03 pm

    This, too, will pass ..

    SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      1 February 2017 at 6:36 pm

      Yes it will. In the meantime, however, it will be a crime against humanity that requires relentless opposition, lest it persist.