#so idk how ethically responsible and logical this would be to carry out | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theliberaltony · 6 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): There’s a lot going on, including tons of speculation about who might get the boot from President Trump next. On Tuesday night, in fact, The New York Times reported that Trump tried to fire special counsel Robert Mueller as recently as December. At about the same time as The Times story went online, CNN reported that Trump is thinking about booting Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who oversees Mueller.

But rather than guess at the likelihood of certain firings or venture into subjects we don’t have much expertise in, let’s focus on … politics! Specifically, what would the political repercussions be if Trump fired ____________?

I’ll fill in the blank, and we’ll discuss them one by one. Here’s the scale you have to rate each hypothetical firing on:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — I’m not sure

— meh, not a big deal

— 1-alarm fire

— 2-alarm fire

— 3-alarm fire

— 4-alarm fire, or an all-out shitshow

Perry and Nate — it’s just us three today, by the way — you got all that?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Sure.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): “I’m not sure” feels like a cop-out, Micah — of the sort you usually try to make us avoid.

micah: OK, let’s nix “I’m not sure” as an option.

Also, the idea with the four-alarm fire — the all-out shitshow — is that it’s not just an isolated controversy, however big or important, but that it spreads. Anyway, revised scale:

— meh, not a big deal

— 1-alarm fire

— 2-alarm fire

— 3-alarm fire

— 4-alarm fire, or an all-out shitshow

First up: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who’s in the midst of a swirl of scandals.

perry: Meh, not a big deal.

natesilver: Yeah, I’d go with “meh” on that one.

A normal administration would fire Pruitt, no question. So it’s almost like I wanna give dumpster-fire points if Trump keeps Pruitt.

perry: Yeah, firing someone because they are in a scandal is not unusual. And Pruitt’s scandals are not Trump/Russia-related or connected to the administration more broadly. Also, I assume that whoever replaced Pruitt would have similar policy views.

micah: Yeah, I think I agree with all that. I guess my only pushback would be that firing Pruitt helps cement the impression that the Trump administration has an ethics/corruption problem, which could have midterm consequences. But maybe that’s true whether Trump boots Pruitt or not.

Well, IDK, let me take a step back: Do you all think the stink of corruption — if it sticks — will/would have a midterm effect? Like, could it make a blue :ocean: worse?

natesilver: I mean, as I said on this week’s podcast, it could discourage Republican turnout if the conservative base feels like Trump hasn’t “drained the swamp.” That’s obviously very speculative, and it’s hard to prove or disprove. But it isn’t totally crazy.

I just think anything Pruitt-related is of a lesser order of magnitude than the other cases we’ll discuss.

perry: I don’t think corruption at the Cabinet-level matters for the midterms. The general Trump-related corruption — staying at his own properties, whatever is going on with Jared Kushner — is part of why liberals hate Trump. But Ben Carson, Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, I’m not sure they matter a ton, if not for their corruption to some extent being allowed/enabled by Trump.

micah: OK, next up: John Kelly, chief of staff.

perry: Two dumpsters

micah: you mean

perry: Yes.

natesilver: It’s confusing, Perry.

I’m going with one

Or a 1-alarm fire.

It’s clear — as Perry wrote in February — that Kelly never really tamed Trump anyway, and we probably shouldn’t have expected otherwise.

It also seems clear that he’s been pretty marginalized in recent weeks. So I think this would have been a big deal six or eight weeks ago, but a lot of it is “priced in” now.

perry: So the case for

…

Firing the chief of staff is disruptive. Firing a chief of staff who is a general and is, in theory, aligned with another general in the Cabinet (Defense Secretary James Mattis) matters to foreign policy. Mattis and Kelly combined could moderate how Trump and the newly installed national security adviser, John Bolton, handle Iran or North Korea or Syria. And, finally, reports have surfaced that Trump is considering not having a chief of staff at all if Kelly leaves. If that happens, it’s possible that the level of chaos will remain the same (high). But having no chief of staff also could lead to even more fighting among staffers for influence, and that could raise the level of chaos slightly.

micah: Also, people forced out of the administration have tended to start talking to the press. I wonder what sorts of things we might learn if Kelly is forced out.

perry: So are you one or two or higher?

micah: I think I’m

— but I wonder if Nate is falling into some sort of fire-alarm inflation because of the rest of the names on our list.

Deflation.

Whatever … you know what I mean.

natesilver: I just think it’s hard to rate things that are “ordinary” shitshows on the same scale as things that could spark constitutional crises.

So maybe, yeah, I am being conservative. But I also think a lot of the consequences that people would associate with Trump firing Kelly have already happened. After a relatively calm start to 2018, the last month or two have been the most chaotic time in the Trump administration, and also Trump has been acting out on his impulses more and more.

perry: That’s true. The only thing I’m really talking about is some pre-emptive strike against North Korea, which I suspect Kelly would be against.

But I don’t know that Kelly would be opposed to such a strike, and it’s not even clear that Kelly could stop that if he is there as chief of staff.

micah: Next!

Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney/fixer. (No relation.)

perry:

natesilver: Has he been in the news lately?

I guess I’d go with

because if he were to flip, that’d be very bad news for Trump.

perry: It would make sense for Trump to distance himself from Cohen — a totally logical political move. But, yes, that would be potentially dangerous to Trump — although, if Trump fires Cohen but Cohen thinks a pardon is possible, that changes the dynamics too.

This is a hard one, and I don’t think we have much evidence that Trump is considering cutting ties with Cohen.

natesilver: I guess what I’m asking is whether distancing himself is really possible … it’s hard to throw your fixer under the bus.

micah: Maybe it’s a bigger deal if Trump doesn’t distance himself from Cohen?

perry: I felt like Trump on Thursday tried to distance himself a bit from the Cohen stuff. But on Monday, Trump strongly defended Cohen.

Trump has to stick to, “I didn’t know about the payments,” which has to mean, “Cohen and I don’t talk about stuff like that.”

natesilver: Yeah, I’m a bit of a minimizer and I think a lot of “BOMBSHELL!!!” reports can be overblown. I don’t think this one is at all, though.

micah: Speaking of …

Attorney General Jeff Sessions!

perry: Four fires or whatever. Really big.

natesilver:

I’m saving my four-fire rating for you-know-who.

But the Sessions firing carries all sorts of risks for Trump. It could spark a confrontation with his base. And it could yield a big fight in Congress over whoever he wanted to replace Sessions.

perry: But less big than, say, last year. Now, the Fox News/House Freedom Caucus part of the conservative base has been given a reason that Sessions should go: He is blocking (or at least not authorizing) a new special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton controversies. Sessions, I suspect, is no longer beloved by the Fox News base. The ground has been laid for Trump to claim that the firing is not about Russia and for conservatives to hear and accept that. Senate Republicans (Sessions’s former colleagues) were strongly defending Sessions last year, amid rumors that Trump would dump the attorney general. I don’t see a similar effort happening now.

natesilver: That’s true. The ground has been softened a lot over the past year. At the same time, Trump has mostly fired the (((globalists))) so far, and this would be really different.

micah: OK … Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general

natesilver:

I guess the obvious question is whether this is a precursor to firing Mueller, though.

perry: This is the highest level, too, but slightly more important than Sessions. It would be purging the person who is, in reality, leading the Russia investigation, since he appointed Mueller and signs off on his work. Like Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, this would mean that Trump was firing someone who was investigating him. The media condemnation would be very harsh.

micah: So you’re going

, Perry?

perry: Yes.

That said, the conservative media has turned Rosenstein into a total villain, so I think he would get very little support there. Fox News would defend the move.

natesilver: Would firing Rosenstein be enough for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump?

perry: I don’t think for this Congress. But, yes, for the Democratic House if there is one after the November elections.

micah: Is there a world in which Trump fires Rosenstein but not Mueller?

perry: I think that’s possible, yes. The Cohen raid, according to The New York Times, was approved by Rosenstein, not Mueller.

micah: Yeah, that’s basically what the CNN story imagines: Fire Rosenstein to rein in Mueller. Like, let’s say he fires Rosenstein and then makes a big speech about letting Mueller finish? Because that could contain the

to some extent?

natesilver: Sure, especially if he holds Rosenstein responsible for crossing the “red line.”

I don’t think he’s going to make that speech, though, Micah.

micah: Yeah.

But he could pitch it as an isolated thing.

natesilver: This is like one of those “what if Steph Curry was 7-foot-1 and retained all of his other basketball skills” questions.

perry: And if the new person who is overseeing Mueller tries to rein in the investigation in any way, that becomes a huge story.

But I think Rosenstein being fired by Trump makes the most sense as we go through these scenarios.

micah: Well, that’s the key question, Perry: Who replaces Rosenstein? Right?

perry: Trump can claim that he didn’t fire Mueller while trying to limit Mueller’s investigation.

micah: Yeah.

natesilver: I guess my view is that firing Rosenstein makes impeachment proceedings likely under a Democratic House. Whereas firing Mueller makes impeachment proceedings inevitable under a Democratic House and possible even under a GOP House.

perry: I agree.

micah: Yeah, if you’re Trump and you want to shut down the investigation, firing Rosenstein is much smarter than firing Mueller.

perry: But as Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux has written, lots of people are involved in this investigation. I don’t think firing Rosenstein is likely to stop it.

Because Sessions recused himself, Solicitor General Noel Francisco would take over oversight of the investigation if Rosenstein left and were not replaced. (People in Washington are assuming that because Francisco, Rosenstein and Sessions recently went to dinner together at a restaurant where they were guaranteed to be seen, they are aligned on all of the Russia issues. I have no idea: I didn’t know what Francisco looked like until Tuesday.)

micah: Well, yeah — Trump in all likelihood can’t stop the investigation.

But that doesn’t mean he won’t try.

OK, let’s add Mueller in here as we wrap up.

natesilver:

perry: So I guess I view the firing of Sessions, Rosenstein or Mueller all as crises. I don’t want to use the term “constitutional” crises, because I think these are more rule of law/governance/norms crises. But I agree that Mueller is the worst.

I’m not predicting that the GOP Congress would move to impeach Trump. But I think a Democratic House would feel as if they had to.

And firing Mueller would, I think, make it more likely that we have a Democratic House.

natesilver: The GOP Congress seems spectacularly unprepared for the world in which Trump fires Mueller.

Literally, their answer — for the most part — to the question of what happens if Trump fires Mueller has been, “Well, we hope he doesn’t.”

micah: Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, was pushing to pass some pre-emptive legislation to protect Mueller in the wake of this week’s news.

perry: The basic calculation of congressional Republicans seems to be: The party base will be mad if they make any pro-Mueller move, since that will be interpreted as anti-Trump, so they can’t do that. But I think congressional Republicans are assuming that Trump doesn’t have the guts to fire Mueller.

natesilver: That’s a bold prediction, Perry. And if Trump reads it, maybe Mueller goes bye-bye!

perry: I’m trying to explain what Republicans in Congress seem to be thinking. Congressional Republicans may be making the wrong calculation, but I understand their thinking. It’s easier for Republicans to hope that Trump doesn’t fire Mueller than to pass a bill to bar him from doing it that Trump either won’t sign or will sign while complaining about it.

I’m not predicting this.

And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he won’t bring a bill to protect Mueller to the floor.

natesilver: Ahh, got it.

Yeah, I think their default move would be to (i) make some moves to restore or replace Mueller and (ii) slow-walk the question of impeachment until the midterms.

But, as I’ve written before in this space, I think the world becomes a very unpredictable place if Mueller is fired.

perry: But firing Mueller, I think we agree, is a move that reshapes the Trump presidency and Washington in a way the firings of Sessions or Rosenstein might not.

Democrats on the Hill are leery about being pro-impeachment right now. But if Mueller is fired, liberal activists all over the country will demand impeachment, and I think elected Democrats will have no choice but to take that position too.

micah: Yeah, this conversation has sort of crystallized for me the extent to which Trump firing Rosenstein is more likely than Trump firing Mueller.

It has some of the same effects but much less risk (although still a ton of risk).

natesilver: Narrator voice: Trump fired Mueller three minutes after we published this chat.

micah: Here are the results (with my ratings added in):

If ____ were fired Nate Perry Micah Scott Pruitt

John Kelly

Michael Cohen

Jeff Sessions

Rod Rosenstein

Robert Mueller

I’ve come out of this chat more convinced that firing Rosenstein is just as bad as firing Mueller. (And I added a “FOUR

!!” ultra level of craziness rating.)

Closing thoughts?

perry: My last thought, to underscore: I think the Cohen raid has ratcheted up the potential for Trump to fire one of the key figures in or around the Russia investigation. I would rank Rosenstein, Sessions and Mueller, in that order, in terms of who might be fired. Any one of those would be a crisis-creating move. And I honestly could see him firing any one of them.

micah: What if he fired all three!?!?!?

perry: Let’s not think about that.

micah: haha

natesilver: Currently, betting markets say there’s a 33 percent chance that Trump fails to finish his term. I don’t know whether that’s too high or too low. Perhaps too high, I guess. What I do think we can say pretty confidently is that the chance of his failing to finish his term is higher than it was six months ago. He’s taking on much higher-stakes confrontations. Most of the adults in the room are gone. Mueller and Rosenstein are being pretty darned aggressive. There’s a lot of risk to the president.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

1 note · View note

jess-oh · 6 years

Text

Reflection

i kinda got this off my chest already to jeanne but im really afraid that im going to start my internship and end up hating working in the industry. there are so many things that are out of my hands right now and i dont know if what im doing is right. i went to the vbs bbq today and it was really fun and im glad i get to meet so many new kids and adults and have nice conversations with them but honestly, i realized that i never really prayed about serving with VBS. for a while, it’s just been a matter of if i get the internship then i’ll stay and volunteer and if i dont get the internship, then i’ll go home for the break and rest. and bc there were so many newcomers, i felt a responsibility to be there for them and a lot has been happening over the summer that i would’ve missed out on had i gone home so i am glad that im here to experience it all. but i think i need to rest in the Lord. I have been resting since I finished school but by drowning myself in media and distracting myself from the real world instead of taking the time to just really meditate and get back on track with God. I’m not complacent and I’m definitely still growing. And yeah, the whole financial situation sucked with my dad but i kinda had a feeling that his layoff wouldnt last long and i knew that i had the opportunity to go home for the break and rest. but i was afraid. i was so afraid of going back to sa-rang. to a place where i dont feel at home. to a place where i feel like a social outcast. i am so afraid of that and thats why i decided to stay and was so eager to jump at any chance i could to find an excuse to stay here in chicago. and thank God for sending me a paid internship but it honeslty almost feels like a test and i dont want to back out bc ive already made commitments to so many people but i ultimately just really want to rest. really. not having to worry about anything and to just be at home with my family, friends, and loved ones. just to be in their presence again would be so nice. i’ve been hanging out a lot more with my d&d friends recently and im glad but it is difficult not talking about God with them. He’s such an integral part of my life. I do think I struggle to some extent to hangout casually with the freshmen bc i want to be a good upperclassman for them but that doesnt mean im not still growing too. i am. idk. im just really worried about a lot of different things and think i should pray to God about it all. I have been relying more so on what’s practical and logical instead of praying about it and seeing where God is leading me. And I do think He’s leading me to go back home. But at what cost? Of feeling ostracized at Sa-Rang again? To have to admit that I’m searching for another church to be my own person and bc my parents are both so involved and i feel like i can never speak ill of them? I want to be around more people like me but people in the OC honestly have it so easy. They have no idea. And it’s really hard for me to relate to them. Josh Hwang has been trying so hard to bring up California to me in whatever situation possible. Not everyone needs to know how we first met. It’s an old story and I’m tired of hearing it. Why can’t you just focus on the now and let it die? It can be a fun fact but I don’t want Sa-Rang to define who I am. It was nice at first for common ground but now it’s annoying and I’m afraid of going back. Of course I miss my family and friends but I’m afraid that our dynamic will have changed and we’ll go back to arguing or maybe I’ll fall back in love with it and be miserable in Chicago again. I want to be independent and be my own person and march at my own pace. And I’m afraid that I can’t do that there. I want to learn to drive so that I stop burdening people out here and can fend for myself. But I also don’t know who would understand my situation. I have tried for so long to fit in at Sa-Rang and I never really clicked with them. And it’s partly their fault but my own as well and that’s something I need to work on. I was just never really a part of the culture. I was very aware that the adults were gossiping today and it just frustrated me. I don’t want to speak so mindlessly of other people when there are so many other things we could be discussing. Even as common ground, I regret it. Mutual friends are nice but I used them as an excuse to get closer to people instead of finding other means. I’m not even that close to these mutual friends yet spoke of them as if I am. I’m afraid that my demons and fears from Sa-Rang have and/or will follow me to Lakeview and I am so afraid of that. I’m honestly so scared whenever I see someone I think I know bc I don’t want to be defined by who I was there. I want to be defined by who I am now and who I’m trying to be. I’ve grown a lot and I do think I’ve been avoiding really processing and reflecting on this past year to some extent but I think it’s necessary. So much happened and I want to get my affairs in order so that I can share to my friends and family back home and be genuine about it.

and bc i always tried so hard to fit in and never quite did, i am constantly questioning why people are friends with me at all there. judy, jennifer, grace...

i always think they’re just pitying me and feel bad for me and are reaching out as a result but i dont want to be friends with them bc they feel bad for me. i want to be friends with them bc they see and appreciate me for me and who i am. for the words of advice that i give and my passion and enthusiasm and strong work ethic and personality. not bc i dont fit in. and i dont know if this is actually true or not but i do think there is a part of them that started reaching out to me bc they feel bad for me. i remember i was so surprised when jennifer thought i was so soft spoken bc i think im pretty loud and bold. i dont think im softspoken at all but bc thats who i was in jr high, thats who ive continued to carry.

i have work tomorrow and im worried that i wont wake up in time. i start my internship on tuesday and im afraid that i’ll hate it. i told everyone today that im doing pretty well in terms of where im at in my life and practically speaking, i am in a good place. but i am so scared. of everything. of so many different things. and i need God to provide me with wisdom and security and I just need to trust in Him bc i’m freaking out on my own.

i love God. For sure. Through and through. I am nothing without Him and He has helped me so many times. He is my everything. He is my all. And I really cannot do anything without Him. I don’t trust my own judgment without Him in the picture. I’ve been so eager to rush into these various things as an excuse to not go back to Cali. But I don’t want me only reason for leaving Sa-Rang be bc I don’t “fit in.” Because I do think it’s a spiritually wealthy place and a place where I could really grow. I think it’s just a matter of being true to my identity in Christ and just being so confident in that. Not caring if I don’t fit in. Not caring if my reputation is ruined bc I reached out to someone that isn’t “cool.” But to just serve there bc that’s where God has led me to go. To be. To serve. I don’t think God is leading me to a church outside of Sa-Rang. I think He does want me to invest there. It’s just my own fears that are driving me away.

I was just talking to Grace An and if I really reflect on the past, I definitely do think a part of me is still bitter. I’ve been hurt so badly so many times at Sa-Rang and as a result, there’s a huge lack of trust there. I have opened myself up to them so many times and I feel like bc I wasn’t “cool” or didn’t “fit in,” it was always just brushed off or ignored. I know that fitting in isn’t the goal but it definitely feels like a lack of community. And I don’t want to pin the blame on anyone but I’ve definitely felt pressure from P. Josh and Jenny to stay in Chicago over the summer. It’s way more practical and makes sense. But I don’t think I can. I think I need to go home. And I hate being a flake. I hate not going through with my promises. But I think it might be better for me to go home and face my fears. And I am still afraid. For sure. There’s no way I’m not. And I think this is something that I need to wrestle with and hopefully the answer will become clearer and clearer as this week progresses. But for now, I do feel better after writing this all out and chatting with some friends. Thank you.

#reflection

0 notes