What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Impeachment defense team fired/quit/who knows.  Two new lawyers signed up.  Trial scheduled to begin a week from Tuesday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2K41M-1U0s

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyA9wkAazE

So looks like they quit because Trump wanted to use the trial to SHOW THE WORLD HOW THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN.  And the lawyers thought this sub-optimal.

[alfred russel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyA9wkAazE

So looks like they quit because Trump wanted to use the trial to SHOW THE WORLD HOW THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN.  And the lawyers thought this sub-optimal.

It doesn't matter what defense he puts on, or even if he puts one on at all. He won't be convicted.

What a way to take advantage of Biden's first 100 days in office.

[Malthus]

Lots of articles about how Trump is the worst president in US history.

Obviously he's been a terrible President, but I would give that dubious prize to Buchanan.

[DGuller]

Lots of articles about how Trump is the worst president in US history.

Obviously he's been a terrible President, but I would give that dubious prize to Buchanan.

The difference between Buchanan and Trump is the hand they were dealt.  Buchanan made a bad situation worse, but Trump made a pretty damn good situation very bad.

[Razgovory]

Lots of articles about how Trump is the worst president in US history.

Obviously he's been a terrible President, but I would give that dubious prize to Buchanan.

That really depends how the next few years will turn out.

[Sheilbh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyA9wkAazE

So looks like they quit because Trump wanted to use the trial to SHOW THE WORLD HOW THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN.  And the lawyers thought this sub-optimal.

Well 45 Senators have already voted against impeachment. Why waste money on proper lawyers when you can go cheaper and focus on delivering your political message?

[Admiral Yi]

Well 45 Senators have already voted against impeachment. Why waste money on proper lawyers when you can go cheaper and focus on delivering your political message?

I guess the old lawyers thought making speeches about THE STOLEN ELECTION might change some minds.

[crazy canuck]

Well 45 Senators have already voted against impeachment. Why waste money on proper lawyers when you can go cheaper and focus on delivering your political message?

I guess the old lawyers thought making speeches about THE STOLEN ELECTION might change some minds.

Or they paid attention to their ethical obligations and refused to make an argument that had no factual foundation.

[Sheilbh]

Well 45 Senators have already voted against impeachment. Why waste money on proper lawyers when you can go cheaper and focus on delivering your political message?

I guess the old lawyers thought making speeches about THE STOLEN ELECTION might change some minds.

Or they paid attention to their ethical obligations and refused to make an argument that had no factual foundation.

I feel like you'd probably do that before taking an instruction from Trump

I mean there is a chance he won't ask his lawyers to breach their ethical duties, but it's low.

[Malthus]

Breach of ethical duties ... combined with a chance of not getting paid. Plus getting stuck with the Trump taint long after his case is done.

At least ask for a big retainer up front! 😄

[Oexmelin]

The Trump presidency will extend its rotten tendrils far beyond the last four years.

ICE fascist union granted more or less veto power over immigration policy:

"One clause in the contract requires homeland security leaders to obtain "prior affirmative consent" in writing from the union on changes to policies and functions affecting agents. It also appears to allow the ICE union to argue that it can reject changes such as Mr. Biden's recent order to focus on violent criminals and not prioritize other undocumented immigrants."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/us/politics/cuccinelli-biden-ice.html?fbclid=IwAR3YyvwHW8bZ3YFa7EgRMGfzw1JBTOsVX9tRwWlWUOzazVlAkXEupkZN-jE

[grumbler]

The Trump presidency will extend its rotten tendrils far beyond the last four years.

ICE fascist union granted more or less veto power over immigration policy:

"One clause in the contract requires homeland security leaders to obtain "prior affirmative consent" in writing from the union on changes to policies and functions affecting agents. It also appears to allow the ICE union to argue that it can reject changes such as Mr. Biden's recent order to focus on violent criminals and not prioritize other undocumented immigrants."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/us/politics/cuccinelli-biden-ice.html?fbclid=IwAR3YyvwHW8bZ3YFa7EgRMGfzw1JBTOsVX9tRwWlWUOzazVlAkXEupkZN-jE

I don't see how enforcement focus has anything to do with agent policies.  I think that the story is reaching.  The author has nothing to back up such a claim.

It sounds more like the standard kinds of clauses you'd find in an employment contract.  An eight-year contact seems like it is much too long, though.

[Tonitrus]

The government shouldn't be making contracts with labor unions in the first place. 

But, that aside, if the contract really did have that far-reaching an impact, it would be worthwhile for the Biden administration to either affirmatively challenge it in court, or unilaterally rip up the contract and invite a court challenge.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think there is cause for concern here; the whistleblower letter with attachments is here:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/whistleblower-complaint-on-cuccinelli-and-ice-union-employment-agreements/1ace69fe8ae349e1/full.pdf

I have no background in labor law so take any comments with an appropriate grain of salt - but the MOA does require the agency to seek consent on any changes to "policies, practices, or working conditions".  As a check I looked at some other federal CBAs involving the same union (different locals).  There are hundreds of them - I looked at 5 at random from different agencies. Where similar clauses occurred in those agreements they used the term "personnel policies" not "policies" (which makes sense).  That creates a concern about the potential scope of this MOA and ambiguity over what is covered by "policy"