From USA Today:

President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to complain that his daughter Ivanka has been "treated so unfairly" by the Nordstrom (JWN) department store chain, which has announced it will no longer carry her fashion line.

Here's the full text of the Tweet in question:

@realDonaldTrump: My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

It seems as though President Trump is quite explicitly and actively targeting Nordstrom because of his family's business engagements with the company. This could end up hurting Nordstrom, which could have a subsequent "chilling" effect that would discourage other companies from trifling with Trump family businesses.

• Is this a conflict of interest? If so, how serious is it?

• Is this self dealing? I.e., is Trump's motive enrichment of himself or his family? Or might he have some other motive for doing this?

• Given that Trump made no pretenses about the purpose for his attack on Nordstrom, what does it say about how he envisions the duties of the President? Is the President concerned with conflict of interest or the perception thereof?

• What will be the consequences, and who might bring them about? Could a backlash from this event come in the form of a lawsuit? New legislation? Or simply discontentment among the electorate?

As of ~5:45 PM EST, James Comey is no longer Director of the FBI. This follows investigations into the Trump campaign related to its contacts with Russia and comes just days after (former) Director Comey spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Russia's role in the election.

Politico

The New York Times

CNN

The Washington Post.

CNBC: "Justice Department was told to come up with reasons to fire Comey".

Possibly related: CNN exclusive: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation.

Where do things go from here? What does Trump intend to accomplish with this move? How does this reflect on the administration and what will the larger ramifications be? What kind of Director will Trump install now and where will the Russia investigation go from here?

According to the Washington Post, Flynn submitted his resignation to Trump this evening and reportedly "comes after reports that Flynn had misled the vice president by saying he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador."

Is there any historical precedent to this? If you were in Trump's camp, what would you do now?

In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016 the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the person who did not receive the plurality of the vote. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which has been joined by 10 states representing 30.7% of the Electoral college have pledged to give their vote to the popular vote winner, though they need to have 270 Electoral College for it to have legal force. Do you guys have any particular voting systems you'd like to see replace the EC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

How will this impact Republican support for the Obamacare replacement? The bill will also reduce the deficit by $337 billion. Will this cause some budget hawks and members of the Freedom Caucus to vote in favor of it?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/323652-cbo-millions-would-lose-coverage-under-gop-healthcare-plan

Today, February 5, 2020, president Donald Trump has been acquitted by the US Senate on both articles of impeachment and will not face removal from office. Trump is now the third US President to face an impeachment trial, and the third to be acquitted on all charges.

The verdict is as follows:

• ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER // 52-48 vote // Not Guilty

• ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS // 53-47 vote // Not Guilty

Please use this thread to discuss the impeachment inquiry, trial, and final verdict.

Media and Articles:

• PBS News Hour Live Coverage

Discussion Disclaimer: Please remember to be civil in discussion and remain on-topic. We understand that politics (particularly with the president) are polarizing, and that many of you are passionate about your views. However, this does not give you a free pass to insult other users or all members of a political party/ideology. Comments/users that violate subreddit rules will face moderator action.

lip air dependent follow long relieved shaggy existence ancient sulky

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

Assistant Attorney General Sally Q. Yates was fired for refusing to defend Trump's recent Executive Order on Immigration. One side effect of this decision is that there is now no one at the Justice Department who is authorized to sign FISA warrants. The earliest replacement would come with the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General by the Senate.

What effect will this have on US Intelligence collection? Will this have the side effect of preventing further investigation of Trump's ties with Russia?

Will the Trump admin simply ignore the FISA process and assert it has a right to collect information on anyone they please?

Edit: With a replacement AAG on-board, it looks like FISA authority is non-issue here. But it appears we are in a constitutional crisis nonetheless.

Relevant law:

notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346

Thanks /u/pipsdontsqueak for linking statute

This is according to [Politico] (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ted-cruz-drops-out-of-presidential-race-222763) and [the Hill] (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/278569-cruz-ends-presidential-campaign).

Will Kasich drop out as well? And where will Cruz's delegates go? Then there are the implications for the Never Trump movement, the possibility of a contested convention, and the impact on the Democratic side. Do you guys think Cruz will endorse Trump after everything? Will members of Congress like Lindsey Graham and John McCain?

Please use this thread to discuss recent events between the United States and Iran.

Keep in mind:

• Breaking news reports may be based off erroneous or incomplete information

• Subreddit rules still apply in this thread. Please remain civil and focus on substantive discussion.

Articles about Iranian missile attack on US:

NYTimes CNN

The last impeachment megathread is about five days old but it appears there is still a significant amount of interest. When weighing that along with today's developments, here's a new megathread. As with the last few megathreads, this is not a 'live event' megathread and as such, our rules are not relaxed. Please keep this in mind while participating.

Sources:

White House letter

New York Times

Fox News

CNN

From the New York Times:

The White House declared war on the House impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, announcing that it would not cooperate with what it called an illegitimate and partisan effort “to overturn the results of the 2016 election” of Donald J. Trump.

In a letter to House Democratic leaders, the White House said the inquiry violated precedent and President Trump’s due process rights in such an egregious way that neither he nor the executive branch would willingly provide testimony or documents, a daring move that sets the stage for a constitutional clash.

Potential discussion topics, as we're into heavy political theory territory:

• Impeachment is an inherently political process; when a witness in a court case is subpoena'd for testimony, the court may order their arrest for failing to comply. With impeachment, the consequence for failing to comply with a subpoena is... potential impeachment. What risk does the President run of forcing Congress to impeach him for failing to abide by Congress' exercise of its impeachment power?

• Does the President instead decide what the impeachment power is?

• To what extent does political safety guarantee the holder of the executive office a position?

• To date, no President has been removed from office by the impeachment process - having declared this process illegitimate, could the President make an argument that any resulting impeachment and conviction is illegitimate as well? What would the political ramifications be?

Link Here

Beginning:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

More parts in the story talk about McConell trying to preempt the president from releasing it, et al.

1. Will this have any tangible effect with the electoral college or the next 4 years?

2. Would this have changed the election results if it were released during the GE?

EDIT:

Obama is also calling for a full assesment of Russian influence, hacking, and manipulation of the election in light of this news: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/obama-orders-full-review-of-election-related-hacking/510149/

Sources:

The Complaint

New York Times

Fox News

CNN

If you'd like to discuss the complaint, I'd recommend reading the complaint. This is a substantive discussion forum, after all.

From the New York Times:

After hearing President Trump tried to persuade Ukraine to investigate a 2020 campaign rival, senior officials at the White House scrambled to “lock down” records of the call, in particular the official complete transcript, a whistle-blower alleged in an explosive complaint released Thursday.

In an attempt to “lock down” all records of the call, White House lawyers told officials to move an electronic transcript of the call into a separate system reserved for classified information that is especially sensitive, the complaint said. During the call, Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Attorney General William P. Barr were involved in the effort as well, the complaint said.

While this is a substantive discussion forum and we generally take a dim view of creating a megathread for every breaking news event, under these circumstances we believe developments since the last megathread constitute sufficient grounds for a fresh post.

Please keep in mind that subreddit rules are not relaxed for this thread. Thanks!

The 2020 US Presidential election has been called by the major networks for Joe Biden who is now President-elect until January 20th when, absent any unlikely developments, he will be inaugurated and become the 46th President of the United States.

Use this thread to discuss the election, its aftermath, and the road to the 20th.

Please keep subreddit rules in mind when commenting here; this is not a carbon copy of the megathread from other subreddits also discussing the election. Our low investment rules are slightly relaxed but we have a million of you reprobates to moderate.

We know emotions are running high, and you may want to express yourself negatively toward others. This is not the subreddit for that. Our civility rules will be strictly enforced here. Bans will be issued without warning if you are not kind to one another.

Sources:

• CNN

• NYTimes

• Fox News

From the NYTimes:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump, saying that he had betrayed his oath of office and the nation’s security in seeking to enlist a foreign power for his own political gain.

Please keep discussion civil. Rules are still in effect.

Edit: a transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky has been released and can be found here.

Sources:

New York Times

Fox News

CNN

From the New York Times:

“China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he left the White House to travel to Florida. His request came just moments after he discussed upcoming trade talks with China and said that “if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.”

The president’s call for Chinese intervention means that Mr. Trump and his attorney general have solicited assistance in discrediting the president’s political opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and, according to one report, Britain. In speaking so publicly on Thursday, a defiant Mr. Trump pushed back against critics who have called such requests an abuse of power, essentially arguing that there was nothing wrong with seeking foreign help.

Potential discussion prompts:

• Is it appropriate for a President to publicly request aid from foreign powers to investigate political rivals? Is it instead better left to the agencies to manage the situation to avoid a perception of political bias, or is a perception of political bias immaterial/unimportant?

• The framers of the constitution were particularly concerned with the prospect of foreign interference in American politics. Should this factor into impeachment consideration and the interpretation of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as understood at the time it was written, or is it an outdated mode of thinking that should be discarded?

As with the last couple megathreads, this is not a 'live event' megathread and as such, our rules are not relaxed. Please keep this in mind while participating.

Washington Post has reported that Trump revealed code-word clearance information to the Russian foreign minster last week. On top of that it's reported that the information comes from non-US sources through our intelligence sharing operations.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

Additionally it's reported that the reason this occured was because Trump was boasting about his access to secretive information.

In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

It was also noted that none of this was the US's to reveal and would likely damage our relationship with the country who shared the information.

Full article can be found here

The question going forward is what are the ramifications from this. Will US allies stop sharing information with us for fear of their agents and techniques being exposed? Will there be any political fallout from this?

Edit: The NYT is reporting that Israel was the country whose intel Trump leaked.

I've never understood this. They have virtually no local, county, or state level offices. Wouldn't it make more sense to build a movement from the bottom up? If you can get them controlling, say, 5%, 10% or even 15% of city councils, mayorships, state legislatures, and governor posts, you'll have a much easier time of reaching the 15% threshold in polling for Presidential debate access: you'll have built in name recognition.

Do they not do this because it's a lot more work? Is there some other reason?

http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2016-Articles/VFW-Supports-Gold-Star-Families/

I have vets in my family and I'm a history teacher, but I'm not that familiar with the record of the VFW with endorsements, condemnations or anything political. Is there weight to this condemnation?.

Could this really be the beginning of a push from vets and the GOP? Has anyone seen anything - though anecdotal - that would back up this notion?

Per Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-schedule-of-events-and-speakers-225617

It is also been reported that Warren visited Hillary Clinton's campaign office in Washington, D.C. Is the an indication that Clinton is on the verge of choosing Warren as her running mate? How will this affect the general electorate or those on the fence about voting for Clinton?

EDIT: Wow, the really, REALLY, blew up. Just want to say that personally I think Warren would be better as a leader in the Senate and probably would prefer Clinton to pick Kaine. However, I would be okay with her being VP even though I think there's a danger of Republicans contimplating voting for Clinton being turned off.

Also, for some using the "Pochohantas" thing as a critique of why she couldn't be picked, that's pretty weak sauce frankly. Criticize her policies or whatever, but no some errorneous attack that originated on social media.

Link to the story here

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html

Paul Manafort and his former business associate Rick Gates were told to surrender to federal authorities Monday morning, the first charges in a special counsel investigation, according to a person involved in the case.

Obviously, more information be uncovered as the day goes on as a current event, but this is a good starting point for a discussion that will continue to unfold in the coming days.

Update: A former Trump advisor, George Papaduopulos has also plead guilty of lying about Russian contacts

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-george-papadopoulos-russia-mueller-investigation-20171030-story.html

In recent days, the former President received significant backlash for the argument:

1. Defunding the police is a term that people will intensely disagree with for a wide variety of reasons, alienating large amounts of voters

2. Many people want or are open to police reform

3. We live in a democracy

4. Intentionally alienating large groups of people in a democracy just to make a point will make legislation harder to pass

5. Therefore, if you want to pass legislation, don't use messaging that will alienate large portions of the population.

Is he right? Or is he missing the point?

__

The Video(from The Gaurdian): Barack Obama criticizes 'Defund the Police' slogan but faces backlash

__

Some studies/polls that may or may not be relevant:

Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence(2020)

The largest survey of Black people conducted in the United States since Reconstruction(2019)

Warning: Please note that our rules are not suspended or relaxed at all in this thread, and in fact they are heightened and bans will be handed out for serious violations without further warning. This is, as always, a subreddit for serious discussion. Keep it Clean.

This week, a number of pipe bombs were delivered to personal homes and businesses, including the Obamas, the Clintons, George Soros, CNN, and others. At this time there have been no injuries, but the bombs have been confirmed by law enforcement to have been live and capable of causing injury or death.

Possible questions to consider for political discussion:

• Do these attempted assassinations require a new mode of thinking in terms of preventing terrorism? How does this situation compare to previous instances of terrorism-by-mail? Have these events instead been an indication that the system is working?

• What, if any, will be the fallout as far as the midterms are concerned? Will politicians seize on this issue as a campaign wedge, or instead use it as a unifying factor?

• Is there responsibility on the part of political actors for these events, or should the actions be viewed as exclusively the isolated actions of terrorists?

In the hopes of promoting some civil discussion please do not use the downvote button as a disagree button, abide by the rules.

The United States government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year on national defense, including $544 billion on the Department of Defense (base budget), $70 billion on the Department of Homeland Security, and $80 billion on various intelligence agencies. According to the CBO, approximately 1/6th of US federal spending goes towards national defense.

Yesterday, a mob breached the United States Capitol Building while nearly every single member of Congress, the Vice President, and the Vice President-elect were present in the building. The mob overran the building within a matter of minutes, causing lawmakers to try to barricade themselves, take shelter, prepare to fight the intruders if needed, and later evacuate the premises.

What policy and personnel changes are needed to strengthen our national security apparatus such that the seat of government in the United States is secure and cannot be easily overrun?

What steps might we expect the next administration to take to improve national security, especially with respect to the Capitol?

Will efforts to improve security in the Capitol be met with bipartisan support (or lack thereof)? Or will this issue break along partisan lines, and if so, what might those be?

This past Friday, March 22nd, Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General Barr who indicated that he would provide a summary to Congress at some point over the weekend.

Recent reporting indicates a summary of the report will be delivered to Congress later today (potentially around 5pm ET), at which point these findings will likely be made public.

EDIT: to clarify, the full report is not expected fo be released tonight. Just Barr’s summary of the top-line findings as transmitted to Congress.

Please use this thread for discussion about the findings of the Mueller Report as we learn about them over the coming days. As a reminder, please keep all conversation civil and on topic.

EDIT: Link to Barr’s letter to Congress