What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Richard Hakluyt]

Bonespurs McBonespurs projecting again.

[Jacob]

I mean it's clear that Trump is almost pathological in his effort to appropriate, denigrate, trivialize or otherwise hollow out things worthy of respect that do not directly reflect glory on himself.

[Valmy]

Hell I felt that Bush seemed to go out of his way to make any country who did us a favor regret it later. Trump just rubs salt in the wounds.

[grumbler]

I mean it's clear that Trump is almost extremely pathological in his effort to appropriate, denigrate, trivialize or otherwise hollow out things worthy of respect that do not directly reflect glory on himself.

FTFY. The Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment were they not unpatriotic cowards.  Trump is beyond mere foolishness.

[mongers]

I mean it's clear that Trump is almost extremely pathological in his effort to appropriate, denigrate, trivialize or otherwise hollow out things worthy of respect that do not directly reflect glory on himself.

FTFY. The Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment were they not unpatriotic cowards.  Trump is beyond mere foolishness.

There is a 'method' in his madness, it's furthering Putin's ambitions.

[viper37]

This stuff looks written by AI.  It's certainly bad enough to look like it was.

I hadn't followed all the development about the Clinton and Epstein stuff, been busy a bit with something really important.

However, this is interesting at the end.

The political world gasped yesterday. But for once, it wasn't because of a scandal. It was because Bill and Hillary Clinton just looked the House 

Oversight Committee in the eye and effectively told them to go to hell. The subpoena demanded their presence for a closed door deposition regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons didn't just decline. They sent a legal letter so scorching it practically burned the paper it was printed on.

The breakdown of the last 24 hours is simple. Chairman James Comer issued the summons, expecting the former power couple to fold or plead the Fifth. Instead, they refused to show up entirely. In response, the committee voted yesterday to hold them in contempt of Congress. But if Republicans think they just scored a victory, they might want to check the chessboard again. They may have just walked into a trap.

The rejection letter from the Clinton legal team was not standard boilerplate. It called the subpoenas "invalid" and "legally unenforceable." It accused the committee of harassment "untethered to a valid legislative purpose." This matches the sentiment of "eat sh*t" perfectly, though phrased in the polite brutality of high priced lawyers. They explicitly stated they would "forcefully defend" themselves.

Here is the core of their argument. It is actually a point that transparency advocates have been making for years. The Clintons argued that it is absurd for Congress to interrogate them about the Epstein files while the government is simultaneously refusing to release those very files. They asked a simple question. How can we testify about evidence you are hiding from us and the public?

This is where the strategy gets brilliant. Legal analysts are buzzing about a theory called "Forced Discovery." By refusing to testify, the Clintons are practically begging to be prosecuted. If the House refers them to the Department of Justice, and if the Trump DOJ actually decides to charge them with Contempt of Congress, the dynamic flips instantly.

Once they become criminal defendants, the game changes. In a criminal trial, the defense has broad rights to see the evidence against them. This is known as "discovery." If the government wants to put them in jail for what they know or didn't say about Epstein, the Clintons can argue that they cannot defend themselves without seeing the full, unredacted Epstein files.

It is the ultimate checkmate. To prosecute the Clintons, the Trump administration would have to hand over the documents they have been slow walking for a year. The Clintons are effectively holding a gun to the DOJ's head. They are saying, "Go ahead. Charge us. But if you do, you have to give us the files."

The GOP really sent a subpoena the Clintons over the Epstein files?  They're all a bunch of juniors or what?

[The Minsky Moment]

The political world gasped yesterday. But for once, it wasn't because of a scandal. It was because Bill and Hillary Clinton just looked the House

Oversight Committee in the eye and effectively told them to go to hell. The subpoena demanded their presence for a closed door deposition regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons didn't just decline. They sent a legal letter so scorching it practically burned the paper it was printed on.

The breakdown of the last 24 hours is simple. Chairman James Comer issued the summons, expecting the former power couple to fold or plead the Fifth. Instead, they refused to show up entirely. In response, the committee voted yesterday to hold them in contempt of Congress. But if Republicans think they just scored a victory, they might want to check the chessboard again. They may have just walked into a trap.

The rejection letter from the Clinton legal team was not standard boilerplate. It called the subpoenas "invalid" and "legally unenforceable." It accused the committee of harassment "untethered to a valid legislative purpose." This matches the sentiment of "eat sh*t" perfectly, though phrased in the polite brutality of high priced lawyers. They explicitly stated they would "forcefully defend" themselves.

Here is the core of their argument. It is actually a point that transparency advocates have been making for years. The Clintons argued that it is absurd for Congress to interrogate them about the Epstein files while the government is simultaneously refusing to release those very files. They asked a simple question. How can we testify about evidence you are hiding from us and the public?

This is where the strategy gets brilliant. Legal analysts are buzzing about a theory called "Forced Discovery." By refusing to testify, the Clintons are practically begging to be prosecuted. If the House refers them to the Department of Justice, and if the Trump DOJ actually decides to charge them with Contempt of Congress, the dynamic flips instantly.

Once they become criminal defendants, the game changes. In a criminal trial, the defense has broad rights to see the evidence against them. This is known as "discovery." If the government wants to put them in jail for what they know or didn't say about Epstein, the Clintons can argue that they cannot defend themselves without seeing the full, unredacted Epstein files.

It is the ultimate checkmate. To prosecute the Clintons, the Trump administration would have to hand over the documents they have been slow walking for a year. The Clintons are effectively holding a gun to the DOJ's head. They are saying, "Go ahead. Charge us. But if you do, you have to give us the files."

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The letter the Clinton lawyers sent doesn't demand that the Epstein files be turned over or say anything much about them.  If the Clintons were charged with contempt with Congress, I don't think discovery would extend to turning over the entirety of the Epstein files, as they would have little relevance to a contempt of Congress charge.

Moreover, there is already a gun to DOJ's head - there is a federal statute requiring them to turn over the files.  I don't think a defendant's discovery request adds much additional weight.  If they are willing to flagrantly violate a federal statute, I can't see them caving just because a party makes a discovery request.

More broadly, the Clintons are represented by a strong legal team.  I would presume they know what they are doing.  But the approach seems very high risk to me.  They could have gone to Court to quash the subpoenas prior to the deposition date.  Or they could have appeared in person, stated their objections on the record, and refused to answer further questions until those defenses are adjudicated.  Not showing up at all is what got Navarro and Bannon jail time. 

Politically, it's also forced some Democrats to cross party lines to recommend contempt out of defense of Congressional power, which makes sense given the likelihood that the Democrats in at least one house may secure subpoena power in 2027. It's terrible timing for Democrats to create a precedent for defiance of Congressional subpoenas.

[Razgovory]

I have no problem setting a president that a President can be forced to testify before Congress.