Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

You can argue for a self-pardon power if you interpret text in isolation from the rest of the document and don't take history or legal meta-principles into account, which account nevertheless judges of all ideological stripes tend to take in analysis of issues of all sorts, so neglecting them in this type of case would be prima facie goal-oriented reasoning demanding a very good explanation. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution, for example, that preemptive pardons prior to the commission of a crime are forbidden, so under the positivistic approach Trump may permanently shield himself and his family/allies from federal criminal liability in a single proclamation. Such a result would allow Trump as a private citizen to defy the federal government or even personally execute the entire sitting Congress without fear of prosecution at any point in his life.

Ultimately there is that fig leaf permitting a far-right court (which we don't quite have yet) to endorse the irresponsible reading, but it would seriously damage the authority of the Court and may eventually grease comprehensive reform... For now let's keep in mind the "pragmatic" constraints on Trump that keep this line of thinking a rhetorical device, that self-pardon (as opposed to pardon by POTUS Pence, Acting President VP Pence, or some future POTUS), whether it's tested or not, guarantees eventual state-level prosecution and conviction barring irrevocable seizure of power. Moreover, there's a very strong case that a corrupt self-pardon (there is no other kind) would in itself be a criminal offense in violation of Obstruction of Justice statutes.

But I don't think there's reason to believe either that a faction of the Framers consciously intended this opening, or that they leaned toward "enlightened monarchy" as opposed to an executive capable of effectively balancing Congress. I understand that self-pardon was never explicitly discussed in documented form during the Constitutional Conventions, whereas proper checks on executive overreach were extensively discussed, so it's up to you to dig up any Framers who took the position that reproducing the privilege of a Charles I or Louis XIV was desirable in a time when even that of a George III was rejected. To reiterate, there is a difference between "energetic executive" and "royal prerogative", especially in the context of the null-executive Articles of Confederation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Guys, when I say take away his money I am referring to Congress controlling the budget. Defunding his departments is a retaliatory action Congress can perform.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump represents the law - he is not the law any more than a judge is. This is why there are methods to remove him in the same way there are those who represent government / healthcare / etc.

The only means of removing him are political, not criminal. If he commits a crime, he can pardon himself. Impeachment is a political tool, to use it doesn't make his actions in violation of the law, it makes his actions in violation of political taste. Every president over the last 200 years has broken the law as they see fit. We don't call Lincoln a criminal for suspending habeus corpus without congressional approval.

[a completely inoffensive name]

4. Tar and feather him.

Impeachment was put in place in the constitution to prevent that resort from being used.

[Gilrandir]

Impeachment was put in place in the constitution to prevent that resort from being used.

Not that spectacular, though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can argue for a self-pardon power if you interpret text in isolation from the rest of the document and don't take history or legal meta-principles into account, which account nevertheless judges of all ideological stripes tend to take in analysis of issues of all sorts, so neglecting them in this type of case would be prima facie goal-oriented reasoning demanding a very good explanation. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution, for example, that preemptive pardons prior to the commission of a crime are forbidden, so under the positivistic approach Trump may permanently shield himself and his family/allies from federal criminal liability in a single proclamation. Such a result would allow Trump as a private citizen to defy the federal government or even personally execute the entire sitting Congress without fear of prosecution at any point in his life.

Ultimately there is that fig leaf permitting a far-right court (which we don't quite have yet) to endorse the irresponsible reading, but it would seriously damage the authority of the Court and may eventually grease comprehensive reform... For now let's keep in mind the "pragmatic" constraints on Trump that keep this line of thinking a rhetorical device, that self-pardon (as opposed to pardon by POTUS Pence, Acting President VP Pence, or some future POTUS), whether it's tested or not, guarantees eventual state-level prosecution and conviction barring irrevocable seizure of power. Moreover, there's a very strong case that a corrupt self-pardon (there is no other kind) would in itself be a criminal offense in violation of Obstruction of Justice statutes.

But I don't think there's reason to believe either that a faction of the Framers consciously intended this opening, or that they leaned toward "enlightened monarchy" as opposed to an executive capable of effectively balancing Congress. I understand that self-pardon was never explicitly discussed in documented form during the Constitutional Conventions, whereas proper checks on executive overreach were extensively discussed, so it's up to you to dig up any Framers who took the position that reproducing the privilege of a Charles I or Louis XIV was desirable in a time when even that of a George III was rejected. To reiterate, there is a difference between "energetic executive" and "royal prerogative", especially in the context of the null-executive Articles of Confederation.

I will see if I can type a bigger response before I hop on board a plane today. But I will just say that the approach I am taking in this convo is precisely the positivistic outcome you describe. If there is no other qualifier other than "except cases of impeachment" then that is what it says, and it is a mistake of the Constitutional Convention to not anticipate this. We patch it up with historical arguments on intent and practicality but the loophole is still there.

This is what I am getting at here Monty. The spirit of the law only matters when all parties respect the law. I have said this before and I guess it is not sticking. When you have an authoritarian moving to undermine institutional norms not written down, your only restrictions on him are what is explicitly written, everything else is a moving goalpost. Before criticizing all my other bullcrap I decided to type, tell me if I am wrong on this point.

As far as quotes, I will need to dig up Madison but I am pretty sure Hamilton advocated for a lifelong executive to replicate the privilages of the English system. Others maybe Morris wanted to scrap the impeachment clause and leave the president unaccountable to Congress, but that may have been for other reasons than inspiration from English law.

[Strike For The South]

Glad The Eagles aren't dignifying him with a response. I think the people who still support him are mostly unreachable, but this kind of tantrums could be the thing that does it.

Re: The pardon.

No court in America would ever say that the president could pardon himself, it simply would not happen. A hypo supreme court ruling would be 8-1 or 7-2. A president whom can pardon themselves flies directly in the face of this cumbersome, check filled system we designed.

[Montmorency]

The only means of removing him are political, not criminal. If he commits a crime, he can pardon himself. Impeachment is a political tool, to use it doesn't make his actions in violation of the law, it makes his actions in violation of political taste. Every president over the last 200 years has broken the law as they see fit. We don't call Lincoln a criminal for suspending habeus corpus without congressional approval.

It's not so clear that the Suspension Clause should be considered the sole purview of Congress (including by your own logic above!), but either way you are missing the key distinction between official uses of power and corrupt abuses of power. No one arrests a Congressman for jaywalking (maybe if black), but even absolute immunity has a limited scope of application to the explicit duties of the office; federal officers and elected officials can and have been tried and jailed for all sorts of crimes, including crimes of official conduct.

The theory that public officials cannot commit crimes is plainly wrong. It's not just wrong, it's laughable.

Again, if the Founders did not consider that the Pardon clause could empower a President to immunize any individual from federal prosecution FOR LIFE, it is not because they failed to perceive a loophole, but because it would have been absurd to interpret the clause in such a way. Indeed we're only talking about this stuff now because in the past no one would have seriously thought this way.

I will see if I can type a bigger response before I hop on board a plane today. But I will just say that the approach I am taking in this convo is precisely the positivistic outcome you describe. If there is no other qualifier other than "except cases of impeachment" then that is what it says, and it is a mistake of the Constitutional Convention to not anticipate this. We patch it up with historical arguments on intent and practicality but the loophole is still there.

This is what I am getting at here Monty. The spirit of the law only matters when all parties respect the law. I have said this before and I guess it is not sticking. When you have an authoritarian moving to undermine institutional norms not written down, your only restrictions on him are what is explicitly written, everything else is a moving goalpost. Before criticizing all my other bullcrap I decided to type, tell me if I am wrong on this point.

As far as quotes, I will need to dig up Madison but I am pretty sure Hamilton advocated for a lifelong executive to replicate the privilages of the English system. Others maybe Morris wanted to scrap the impeachment clause and leave the president unaccountable to Congress, but that may have been for other reasons than inspiration from English law.

Except our legal system does not depend only on "what is written", because what is written in excerpt exists in the context of all the rest that is written and unwritten in law.

The only people in the judiciary who interpret law this way do so selectively and with political motivation.

Pick out any Supreme Court decision, and let's examine it; I bet with you that under your lens of analysis the decision and reasoning would be incomprehensible, because admitting so much context both legal and historical.

Madison was pretty pro-state and anti-Federalist, no? Hamilton was aware of the Glorious Revolution, as would have been all of the Founders. I'm sure there's more, but the bulk of my knowledge on what he said about the executive are Federalist Papers 67-77, which is basically just the executive we have codified in our Constitution - far weaker than the contemporary elaborated Presidency. Hamilton AFAIK specifically did not advocate for a lifelong presidency, though he raised the possibility alongside lifelong appointment of senators, but was a strong opponent of term limits. Which leaves the matter up to the public will.

Nixon took the strong stance that he was as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, but only for 4 years at a time, and not subject to any court but the court of impeachment. Find me a Hamilton document, or anyone's writing, that advances anything as close to this strong view of executive power in the early days of the Republic, other than a tiny movement that literally called for George Washington to declare himself King and did not to my knowledge include any of the 'important' Founders.


I'll repeat James Madison on Presidents and pardons:

“There is one security in this case [a misuse of the pardon power by the president] to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended fill he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.”

Note, crucially, that in my searches I cannot determine whether Obstruction of Justice or analogous offenses existed in common or criminal law in the 18th century. Did they even exist prior to WW2? That's around where I start finding the phrase "obstruction of justice" used concretely rather than rhetorically.



By the way:

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE, we're ONE STATE away (and probably a Congressional re-authorization...) from passing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution!

If it's the Puerto Ricans in Florida or the socialists in Virginia that accomplish this for us, I'm gonna be so jelled.

[Montmorency]

Forget about pardons for a moment

Nationalize the coal industry? Stop, I can only get so erect.

Deadass, if Trump were to do such a thing I would shake his hand and playfully slap his behind.

Trump is actually taking the first steps towards nationalization.

This could seriously happen.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-plants-617112
https://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-security.html
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how...arkets/524906/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...residency.html


DO IT

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not saying that all public officials have unlimited immunity. Just the president does. My reference to Madison was about the notes he took at the Constitutional convention I would also think he wanted as far from a strong executive as possible.

To reiterate, my point of view is that the correct view of law which you describe applies when all parties respect the law. Presidents have ignored SCOTUS before. Trump is at the same level of popularity as Carter and HW Bush was this far into their first term.

This battle will increasingly shift from the realm of law to the realm of public opinion as his authoritarian tendencies become emboldened or he fears for his survival from persecution. Only overt violations of written law will convince an otherwise apathetic public of the true nature of where this game is leading us.

[Montmorency]

Not saying that all public officials have unlimited immunity. Just the president does. My reference to Madison was about the notes he took at the Constitutional convention I would also think he wanted as far from a strong executive as possible.

The President does, as do Congresspersons and Senators, as do federal judges...

But it falls in a specific scope: performance of official duties.

You can't just commit any crime you like and get away with it by dint of your office.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The President does, as do Congresspersons and Senators, as do federal judges...

But it falls in a specific scope: performance of official duties.

You can't just commit any crime you like and get away with it by dint of your office.

Correct. Immunity is derived from the Article 1 Section 6. It provides immunity from arrest during legislative sessions or travel to/therefrom EXCEPT in cases of Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace. It also holds that a legislator cannot be questioned regarding comments/statements made on the debating floor except by colleagues also at that venue. This has been extended to all federal judges and elected executives, but it applies only during their term of office. In particular, Article 2 Section 4 goes on to talk about impeachment of the President or Vice President and other government officials for Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Bottom line. Immunity exists and is pretty broadly applicable WHILE IN OFFICE, but you cannot use that immunity to rob banks, kill people, or urinate on your neighbors. Upon removal from office by impeachment (or being between sessions in the case of Congress) you are no longer immune and they can arrest you as normal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

I think the culture of the USA is still too oriented on the rule of law to have things break down. It has been bent in the past, and likely will again, but has not broken.

[Husar]

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

I think I got your point and it wasn't bad at all.
A law is only worth something if enough people enforce it.
Some say the second amendment clearly says "well-regulated militia" and other say it doesn't matter. The others clearly get to enforce their version of the law at the moment even if we assume it is not the one that was intended. In the same way certain other legal interpretations can be useless if a sufficient portion of the country just decides to ignore them and has the power to do so.

[Montmorency]

Correct. Immunity is derived from the Article 1 Section 6. It provides immunity from arrest during legislative sessions or travel to/therefrom EXCEPT in cases of Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace. It also holds that a legislator cannot be questioned regarding comments/statements made on the debating floor except by colleagues also at that venue. This has been extended to all federal judges and elected executives, but it applies only during their term of office. In particular, Article 2 Section 4 goes on to talk about impeachment of the President or Vice President and other government officials for Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Bottom line. Immunity exists and is pretty broadly applicable WHILE IN OFFICE, but you cannot use that immunity to rob banks, kill people, or urinate on your neighbors. Upon removal from office by impeachment (or being between sessions in the case of Congress) you are no longer immune and they can arrest you as normal.

As I will point out below, no form of immunity (except as argued for the chief executive since the 1970s) confers immunity from arrest and trial. It is only immunity from liability under specific conditions.

An interesting tidbit to embarrass positivists: Absolute immunity doctrine for POTUS (which has been in reference to court injunction or tort and not to criminal prosecution prior to Nixon) is half a fabrication from the recognition of executive privilege pervasive in all judicial-executive interactions and half a historical holdover of far more sweeping crown and sovereign immunity for the English monarch and their agents.

Beyond U.S. Constitution art. I, § 6

[Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

state and local legislators, judges, and prosecutors have been conferred absolute immunity by multiple Supreme Court affirmations without basis in any particular statute or the Constitution, but usually in "common-law and historical" considerations following 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (1871), a due-process and civil damages law that "says nothing about absolute immunity for anyone". And as I pointed out, immunity only extends to the designated tasks of the office (judicial, legislative, prosecutorial...), but not to simply any other function or action taken under color of holding the office, including administrative. Because "[i]t is important to constantly remember that absolute immunity is something that goes with the task, not with the office", executive officials can even receive absolute immunity when acting in judicial context, e.g. serving as a witness. It turns out judges have really liked to stake out absolute immunity as far as possible despite the lack of explicit statutory justification. Hell, the ruling in Baraka v. McGreevey (2007) even found that a governor could secure legislative immunity in budgetary decisions. How many "el-oh-el"s is that? It is not true in any case (except arguably for the President due to nothing more than the importance of the office) that conference of absolute immunity protects an office holder from any prosecution for the duration of their holding the office. All of this applies at least as much to civil liability as to criminal, by the way. Even the President can be held civilly liable, either for conduct prior to taking office (Jones vs. Clinton), or even for conduct during tenure of office (Nixon vs. Fitzgerald) as long as one separates the conduct of the POTUS and the conduct of the man or woman occupying the office of POTUS.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10082/Sec...mmunities.html
https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/...text=lawreview
https://nahmodlaw.com/2009/10/29/a-s...cope/#more-250
https://nahmodlaw.com/2013/02/20/a-s...tive-immunity/
https://nahmodlaw.com/2013/03/14/a-s...cial-immunity/
https://law.justia.com/constitution/...direction.html
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewco...t=ilsajournal/
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/after...or-prosecutors
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-pres...ity-be-trumped

And of course of course, you don't even have our judicial branch without Marbury vs. Madison, a decision of unmatched potency despite not really deciding anything about the case at hand.

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.c...bury-story.pdf

The point of this is not to argue that absolute immunity does not exist (whether it should exist is a separate discussion), but to point out that under a positivist rationale absolute immunity could not exist other than as specified for legislative action under the Constitution, and to emphasize that our entire legal framework could not exist if we abandoned context, common-law, history, and determinations of public interest, and limited ourselves only to the text at-hand.

This is also, of course, how courts can routinely act in favor of cops despite a mere "qualified" immunity for executive officers and agents, so flexibility and discretion has downsides. It is nevertheless the underpinning of law and process in our country.

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

I thought you were echoing the Trump admin's position that 'if the President does it, it's not illegal.' Beyond that, claiming that law in this country is written, interpreted, and applied positivistically is objectively incorrect.

Sorry for making you feel bad. I'm awfully good at that. :(

I think the culture of the USA is still too oriented on the rule of law to have things break down. It has been bent in the past, and likely will again, but has not broken.

It doesn't obviate the ideal fully, but we should be reminded that the US has never had a strict culture of "law and order", rather one of expedience and two tracks for the powerful and the weak. We're better than most, but :better" has a very limited virtue.

(Also, technically having any citizen protected by any form of official immunity at any time means we cannot possibly be "equal under the law", even formally. )

I think I got your point and it wasn't bad at all.
A law is only worth something if enough people enforce it.
Some say the second amendment clearly says "well-regulated militia" and other say it doesn't matter. The others clearly get to enforce their version of the law at the moment even if we assume it is not the one that was intended. In the same way certain other legal interpretations can be useless if a sufficient portion of the country just decides to ignore them and has the power to do so.

The one illegal thing (contempt of court?) Lincoln may have done re: suspending the privilege* of the writ of habeas corpus was ignoring Judge Taney in ex parte Merryman, except, like with Andrew Jackson and Worcester vs. Georgia, the court did not actually direct or enjoin any government action, so

The judicial branch has often taken pains to avoid stepping on the shoes of the other branches when it comes to injunctions.


*Historical tangent, but the Constitution specifies that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended, it seems. What this means is that unlawful arrest or detention is still unlawful under the suspension, you just don't have the privilege to pursue damages or recourse. Once the suspension has been lifted and the privilege rehabilitated, in theory one can pursue the issue in court. I can't find the article now, but one analysis found that the vast majority of arrests under Lincoln's policy were lawful, even if arguably the policy itself was an overreaction and not especially helpful towards maintenance of national security.


EDIT: I should have thought of this, but technically one of the worst aspects of Bush-era extradition policies and the Guantanamo Bay prison was that it involved a much more serious erosion of the habeas corpus right than under Lincoln, not least because it was not constrained by any specified exigent justification or limited in time and space. AFAIK we haven't recuperated habeas corpus so far in the Forever War. The Japanese-American internment during WW2 also involved the suspension of habeas corpus privilege; the American experience with habeas corpus thus fits into the familiar pattern of iterative escalation of security measures.

[Husar]

The one illegal thing (contempt of court?) Lincoln may have done re: suspending the privilege* of the writ of habeas corpus was ignoring Judge Taney in ex parte Merryman, except, like with Andrew Jackson and Worcester vs. Georgia, the court did not actually direct or enjoin any government action, so

The judicial branch has often taken pains to avoid stepping on the shoes of the other branches when it comes to injunctions.

I don't know why you bring up courts in reply to my post.
Courts can be changed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7140661.html

They only have power if the executive actually enforces their decisions. And failing that, the people in general.
The point was that with sufficient support in the populace and the executive, the rule of the law can be broken and Trump is moving somewhat in this direction by trying to discredit every institution that tries to block him.

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

[Montmorency]

I don't know why you bring up courts in reply to my post.
Courts can be changed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7140661.html

They only have power if the executive actually enforces their decisions. And failing that, the people in general.
The point was that with sufficient support in the populace and the executive, the rule of the law can be broken and Trump is moving somewhat in this direction by trying to discredit every institution that tries to block him.

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

That's what I was touching on in my response to your portion - executive power overriding subtle judicial arguments, and courts actively deferring to the executive in order to avoid a situation in which the executive have to choose between following onerous court orders, or explicitly rejecting them.

Sorry for rambling.

[Husar]

That's what I was touching on in my response to your portion - executive power overriding subtle judicial arguments, and courts actively deferring to the executive in order to avoid a situation in which the executive have to choose between following onerous court orders, or explicitly rejecting them.

Sorry for rambling.

What rambling? If I misread your post, it's your duty to point that out. How else would I learn?

In your example you seem to say Lincoln acted against a court order, but the court wasn't exactly interested in ordering him to do or not do anything anyway. Then you say the courts generally try not to interfere with the executive.

So, do you agree that it is possible that noone would stop Trump from ignoring the law and potentially the constitution?
It's not just about the courts, imagine a democratic congress were to impeach him, but his crazy cabinet would back him and order the police/military not to remove him. Would that result in a coup/civil war or endless debates until his term was over anyway? And what if he'd then declare a state of emergency and postponed the elections? Would all the California hippies pick up their AR-15s and march on Washington?

These are hypotheticals of course, but I'm not entirely sure how disinterested courts figure into this other than that they might make it even easier for him.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump spreads BS like a manure spreader.
It seems this trait has "trickled down" to the FCC:

https://wonkette.com/634875/trump-fc...ames-it-on-dog

"We've were hacked!"
"We have no proof, but, I mean obviously we need to stop public comment on net-neutrality cause...you know"

Making America Great

https://gizmodo.com/senior-us-offici...sec-1797593781

[Gilrandir]

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

There was no Turkey back then. So your supposition is wrong.

[Husar]

There was no Turkey back then. So your supposition is wrong.

I think you misunderstand. I linked to an article about Erdogan to show what Trump could potentially do, but wanted to make sure people know that I don't think the US situation is exactly like the Turkish one. The last part was just a joke about the Romans probably having thought that their empire was more stable than it was, too.

[Gilrandir]

I think you misunderstand. I linked to an article about Erdogan to show what Trump could potentially do, but wanted to make sure people know that I don't think the US situation is exactly like the Turkish one. The last part was just a joke about the Romans probably having thought that their empire was more stable than it was, too.

I think you have failed to detect irony. For the first time.

[Montmorency]

Guys, let's take jurisprudential stuff to the other thread.

Anyone have any comments on Trump gearing up for some top-down command in energy markets?

And I don't want to be this fellow,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

but here's an excellent argument for why "if Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it": it's a national security asset, it's relatively tiny against the scale of the economy, it concentrates a small number of skilled workers, it's been utterly outcompeted in international (and domestic) markets by the rest of the world even with govt subsidies, it's been operating on annual net loss for almost a decade, it could be bought out for cheap (compensated eminent domain?), and the desired level of strategic production and skill retention could be maintained more efficiently under national control than with scattershot efforts to keep a failed private industry solvent...

[Husar]

I think you have failed to detect irony. For the first time.

Can't even see it now.
But late at night and early in the morning I'm less than perfect indeed.

[Gilrandir]

Can't even see it now.
But late at night and early in the morning I'm less than perfect indeed.

Perhaps it wasn't irony in the strict sense. Rather trolling.

[HopAlongBunny]

G7 summit ends in confusion and mixed messaging:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44427660

Trump slags Trudeau once carefully out of any danger of a face-to-face; on trade the appearance is of a G6 with the USA going it own way; the communique will not be unanimous, again the USA will be the dissenting party.
The SCO meanwhile seems to just ticking along nicely...

[Gilrandir]

G7 summit ends in confusion and mixed messaging:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44427660

Trump slags Trudeau once carefully out of any danger of a face-to-face; on trade the appearance is of a G6 with the USA going it own way; the communique will not be unanimous, again the USA will be the dissenting party.
The SCO meanwhile seems to just ticking along nicely...

"Belay that talk, John Silver," he said. "This crew has tipped you the black spot in full council, as in dooty bound; just you turn it over, as in dooty bound, and see what's wrote there. Then you can talk."

[Montmorency]

Great photo, very artistic. Check out Japanese Scaramucci hanging in the back.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Here is the scene from 5 more angles.)

As expected, the photo is highly exploitable as a meme. Here are some entries:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[HopAlongBunny]

It was a big summit. A beautiful summit. Many things were said.
And that is about the level of detail Trump got from Kim:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/here-i...ike-kims-bitch

As the article notes, unlike the Iran agreement with specific verifiable goals and an end to enrichment, this agreement contains none of that.
I suspect Trump and Kim linked pinkies and both promised to be very very good...