Let's say Trump fires Mueller. Can Mitch be held accountable since he refused to allow Congress to vote on a bill protecting Mueller from being fired?

held accountable? you mean like Senator Whitehouse gets to wrap McConnell's knuckles with a ruler?

I have no idea what that means.

I agree. He'd be able to brag that he eradicated ISIS and neutralized the North Korean nuclear threat within his first two years... and 95% of Americans are never going to understand the argument that we were already well on our way to finishing off ISIS under Obama, or that Trump didn't significantly change the strategy (he just ramped up the bombings and the tolerance for collateral damage).

Who the **** is going to hold him accountable? The voters of SC? Lol!

It doesn't matter anyway, it's unlikely it'd ever get through the house and even then Trump would have to sign it into law.

They're just trying to thread some weird needle of showing their 'deep concern' while not pissing off Trump/trumpkins by actually passing something, and yet still being able to say they tried to stop him if/when the political winds within the party change.

Fox and Friends rant was crazy. What a wingnut.

You mean KY? Gowdy is the ********** from SC.

There's so much pessimism here at times. Look, I'm as liberal as the next Bernie Bro. But there are R's that truly care. (Yes, I realize you can count them on one hand)

I'm asking a legal question. Can Mitch McConnell be held responsible for failure to allow a vote if Trump fires Mueller?

You gotta realize. All of these dip****s are in it for themselves. They are just as willing to throw Trump to the wolves as he is willing to throw them. So to say nothing will ever happen is being short-sighted.

awval listened to that fox and friends rant today and immediately text messaged the "OK" hand symbol emoji to all his farm buddies. then they texted him back "14, 88". then he texted back "88"

i'm confused by what you mean by holding McConnell accountable. he's just one of the hundreds of R bums allowing our democracy to be chipped away.

It would be an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance for normal people.

I personally have no trouble giving Trump credit when it's due. Everybody who knows me knows that. The (obvious) problem is, it's so rare compared to the bad or appalling things he does. There's also an abnormally amazing disparity between what Trump claims he's good at, and the truth. He represents it at 100/0, when it's actually more like 10/90.

The above paragraph gives (fake) credence to Trump when he says the mainstream media covers him negatively. DUH, of course they do! He's a negatoid. So it's true statement; more accurately, a tautology. The falsehood is when he says he wants to be covered fairly, because he really means positively. Unfortunately, positive coverage would be extremely UNfair...by about 90%. Fox's* claim to be "fair and balanced", meaning 50/50 by their intent (which is still way off**) would be about half as bad - or unfair by about 40%.

Sorry if that sounds a little mangled, but I think it's close to correct.

*All of Fox, not just F&F.

**Despite their claim, Fox coverage is about 85/15 positive, or off by like 75%, IMO.

It's not hypocritical. Protesting putin and mugabe is fine but the relationship between them and the uk government doens't really need political protest.

The usa is our close friend, ally and military partner. We frequently take action together. It's far more important that we protest trump and closeness between out government and his administration. May could be behaving like macron if the british people weren't so opposed.

I'm getting my 'go back to france' placard ready.

I guess you can try to sue McConnell for failure to control a dangerous animal.

I'm well aware of this. That's not what I'm wondering. I know the GOP is ****.

What I'm asking is can Mitch be held accountable legally by the letter of the law.

I think the most amazing part of the Fox and Friends interview is the reaction of the "interviewers."

First, they actually asked some semi-legitimate questions! Second, they were completely shell shocked by the stupidity, their faces were just amazing.

West Virginia Did not exist in 1860. It split from Virginia because of the civil war and the rest of Virginia's decision to secede (the two sentence version anyway).

"If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing."

!!!!!

Even assuming he could be, who exactly is gonna levy those charges? If the Dems are lucky enough to regain control at some point, whatever Schumer type is in charge won't be leading chants to LOCK HIM UP; instead, they'll be asking us to HELP HIM UP.

Name five and list what they've done to actually resist Trump or to protect the democratic Republic from him. They truly care about themselves, first, second and third.

It's his job to decide what is voted on. So no, I can't see how he could be held responsible for doing his job. If the GOP wanted to force a vote, I think their caucus could re-open a leadership vote and elect a new majority leader... I highly doubt they do that.

The first two sentences are correct, the third is not. They'd love to throw him to the wolves, if they could. They know the party will fracture and/or they'll get primaried... So it's a non-starter. The key here is that they are all in it for themselves, not the country, not the people. They'd rather keep their jobs in an authoritarian regime than do anything to hurt Trump and potentially lose their own jobs.

The only way to hold Turtle Face accountable is to vote him out. Alas, Kentucky.

Maybe Stormy's lawyer and the SDNY prosecutors will pull a reverse Sopranos and both Trump and the Fox & Friends team will receive a nice fruit basket and deli meat tray tomorrow morning.

I didn't say 5. I said you could list them on one hand. So one is Even McMullen. He's been saying Americans need to stand up to Trump. Your 2nd point basically answered my question. Lastly, I do not agree that there is zero % chance that nothing happens.

I may be totally missing your point, but it sounds like you are saying that it is the people who "hate" Trump's fault and not Trump's fault for being so odious.

Somewhat reminiscent of the forum battles in which some people claimed it is worse for someone to call another person a racist than to be the person who holds "racist" views.

Wheeee!!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...376194561?s=19

You ain't the only one pal.

No, I'm saying that Trump is such a polarizing figure that at this point his grave has been dug and he's drawing super thin to ever acquire a significant amount of political capital. It's not the fault of the haters at all, it's a combination of Trump sucking in general, Trump sucking particularly at respecting political norms, and the country being very polarized.

Some people disagree with me and have made good points. The point I'd stress is that approval rating does not necessarily reflect political capital. Even if Trump gets >50 AR, I'm still pretty sure Congress hates him and he is fully incapable of executing any sort of coherent policy more complicated than what F&F tells him to do.

During one of his cable news appearances today, Avenatti made an implication that he doesn’t believe the $1.6 million pay out was for Broidy. When Cohen had to reveal his 3 clients last week he said it was Trump, the Trump organization, and Hannity and the way the convo went it seemed like Avenatti believes it might’ve been for Trump. Usually I would be skeptical of claims like this but Avenatti hasn’t made any claims that he hasn’t been correct about lately and I don’t see why he would bring this up unless he has some info about the payment.

Also lol at Cohen having something like 15 cell phones seized by the FBI during the raid, he’s literally like Saul Goodman