https://www.sutori.com/story/timeline-you-might-be-interested-in–pTTyLH39r7FsRtF51JZi4BVt

DJT’s entire life has been a lie. His “empire” is built on lies. All of his family lies. His associates.

He lies to banks, he lies to contractors, he lies to governments – local, state, federal, and foreign. And he lie to us, the citizens of the United States on a daily basis.

But this little lie (there are much bigger lies) might just be the one thread that pulls the whole criminal tapestry apart.

But there are disadvantages for both sides. If the President vetoes a popular bill, he takes a political hit, as does the congress if they override a Presidential veto on an unpopular bill. There will be a political price to pay for either one if they go against the will of the people, or perhaps I should say “their constituency”. To frustrate this concept in order to help (or hinder) the President, is an abuse of legislative power, and it is a surrendering of legislative power to the Executive.

Its analogous to the situation with Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. The GOP Congress had every right to reject him, but they might have to pay a political price if the public felt their rejection was unfair or too partisan. Instead, they refused to even talk to him. I suppose the appropriate sports metaphors would be “running out the clock” or “falling on the ball”. And they had so much contempt for the voter that they never even realized that the voter would know what and why they did it make them pay a price.

These parliamentary maneuvers may be of some limited tactical value in that they affect some policy being implemented in the short term, but they are strategically disastrous because they reveal your moral cowardice in the long run. It is pretty clear that the Republicans are now preventing issues from coming to a vote when they know they will lose, and sometimes even when they know they will win! They are not just afraid of these outcomes, they don’t even want to let the voters know their position on them. They are afraid of letting things come to a vote because they are afraid to take responsibility for that vote, even if they prevail! They are surrendering their checks and balances over the Executive, forgetting that tomorrow the shoe may be on the other foot and they will regret it. It is not only political malfeasance, it is, to say the least, very undemocratic, with a small “d”.

We had a word for it in the Navy, it was “chickenshit”.

With these newest revelations, Trump will cling even more tightly to his crumbling base. He will not budge on the wall and will become even more outrageous in his behavior and statements.

Of course Mitch McConnell could allow a vote and a funding bill could pass by a veto-proof majority… without a wall… and the Trump supporters would go berserk… likely turning on Trump. They thought they elected the star of ‘The Apprentice’, but instead they got ‘The Biggest Loser’…

We need statutory mechanisms that will ensure that a candidate’s business interests will not conflict with his public office. I realize that there are already numerous laws and guidelines in place (such as the Emoluments Clause), but it appears Trump simply ignored them, and the Republican Party made no effort to enforce them. And his evasion of those laws and statutes and customs was celebrated by his followers as evidence of his dynamic, take-charge, “executive” nature and decisive management style. For the rest of us, it was just evidence of his penchant for cutting into line ahead of those who are patiently awaiting their turn. Democrats saw a bully who cuts corners. For starters, we STILL haven’t seen his fucking tax returns.

Conflicts of interest are the most obvious place to start, it should be a part of the nomination process that documents be filed with an independent watchdog agency that completely spell out the candidate’s business holdings and that they be placed in trust, open to public inspection, away from his control during the period of elected office. And it goes without saying that policy decisions made by a politician are not motivated primarily to furthering his business interests after he leaves office. It may be conceded that a lawmaker may very well have a perfectly legitimate reason to pursue a public policy which coincidentally benefits his own interests, but at least the rest of us should be aware of it.

The primary purpose of government is to protect us from bullies, and people with great financial power who control substantial property and productive assets certainly qualify, right along with foreign armies and common criminals. We do not appoint gangsters sheriff simply because they have an intimate understanding of crime and the law. There is no reason why a businessman can’t be a political leader, but there is every reason to scrutinize him before he starts.

And most of all, we should realize that simply being a businessman does not particularly qualify a man for an elected position. The personality and skills which allowed him to accumulate a fortune or administer a commercial empire may well be of value in public office, but they are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to assume one. A man’s private interests are his own business, but they become a public concern when he seeks access to coercive government power.

If anything good comes from this squalid little episode in American history, it will be that the next time a successful businessman runs for elected office or is nominated for a position in the government bureaucracy, he will have to first persuade us that his private success does not disqualify him for public service.