U.S. Politics: Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey Chameleon

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The transcript looks terrible but it's sheer terribleness and how much it sounds like a bad movie makes me think it was in jest.

I honestly don't really have a clue of whether it was a joke, or whether it was a Freudian slip or whatever. I'm not sure at this point.

What I do know, though, is that it sure was a good opportunity to crack a joke at the Republican Party's expense.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

There is nothing that POTUS can do which can be prosecuted normally. The only way he can be accused of a crime and actually charged for it is the process of impeachment. Now, he can be impeached for things other than crimes - but he cannot be indicted for crimes outside of congress. 

Sorry to be a dork but this is not entirely accurate.  The courts have never ruled on whether a sitting president can be prosecuted.  The closest they came was US v. Nixon, but SCOTUS punted.  Now, it is true that the Office of Legal Counsel has determined twice (1973 and 2000) that the president could not be criminally prosecuted - and that is the general consensus among legal scholars - but this is not technically law.  Indeed, some of the arguments used, such as the "unitary executive" theory or the reading of Article I Section III on the Senate's conviction powers, are quite open questions.

That being said, there are good reasons for both why no sitting president has faced criminal prosecution and why no court has ever clarified the issue.  Especially in today's polarization, it is undoubtedly prudent that we use the impeachment process rather than normal prosecutorial discretion (it should be noted, btw, that Article I Section III is crystal clear that the president can still be subject to prosecution after removal from office).  Moreover, especially with today's current president, it is undoubtedly prudent that there is no binding decision or document that states he is above criminal prosecution.

[Paladin of Ice]

An already large, conservative, and pro-Trump media broadcasting company might be about to acquire the vast majority of local television news stations. So yay for more misinformation! (For bonus points, this is happening part because of Trump's FCC appointee loosening the rules regarding broadcast companies.)

Quote

Sinclair Broadcast Group — a conservative, Trump-friendly television empire — is poised to become one of the most powerful players in the mainstream media. The relatively unknown company, whose stations have mixed conservative commentary with local news, is now on the verge of a deal that would allow it to reach nearly three-quarters of American households.
On May 8, Sinclair announced its plan to buy Tribune Media Company and its 42 television stations for $3.9 billion — a merger made possible by the Trump administration relaxing regulations on broadcast ownership. If the acquisition goes through, Sinclair would become the nation’s largest broadcast group “by a country mile,” as Sinclair CEO Christopher Ripley put it to investors Monday morning. An estimated 72 percent of American households would live in a place where Sinclair controls at least one of the broadcast television stations.

This is a big deal — literally — because local news programs are some of the most-watched shows in America. About 23 million Americans tune into the evening local news, and 12 million watch the early morning local news. The three top cable networks — CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — only get around 3 million primetime viewers daily.

People who tune into Sinclair stations for local news often end up getting some conservative commentary in the mix as well. The broadcaster has a history of airing right-leaning segments critical of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Trump campaign struck a deal with Sinclair to air exclusive interviews with Trump during the election.

The company’s vice president for news, Scott Livingston, has accused mainstream news outlets of being too liberal. He claims that Sinclair is more balanced. “I think maybe some other news organizations may be to the left of center, and we work very hard to be in the center,” he told the New York Times recently.

...

These regulations date back to the 1940s, when the FCC decreed that companies could only own three TV stations at once. By the 1950s, there was the so-called “Rule of Seven,” which restricted owners to seven FM, seven AM, and seven TV stations. In recent decades, the FCC has loosened its regulations even further: Altogether, a company’s portfolio of TV stations can’t reach more than 39 percent of American homes.

Right now, Sinclair’s stations reach about 38 percent of American households. But in April, an FCC decision reopened a loophole for the company grow much, much bigger.

How Trump’s FCC chair brought back a loophole allowing Sinclair to grow

The FCC’s new chair, Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee, wants to raise the 39 percent cap and allow broadcasters to buy up more stations — but that might require an act of Congress. In the meantime, he’s turned to a loophole known as the UHF discount.

Television stations use one of two different kinds of wavelengths, VHF or UHF. Until 2009, stations licensed to broadcast on VHF were more valuable, because VHF waves are larger, travel farther, and can get into homes more easily. This made UHF stations less desirable than VHF stations, so in calculating the ownership limits, the FCC gave companies what’s called a “UHF discount” — only half of a UHF station’s audience would count toward a company’s limit of 39 percent of American households.

But in 2009, American television stations switched to digital broadcasting. When that happened, UHF stations were no longer at a disadvantage; in fact, they were more desirable. Although UHF frequencies don’t penetrate as far as VHF, they are less prone to the kind of interference that affects digital TV signals, so customers get a clearer picture.

Long before the digital transition was complete, the FCC was warning that the UHF discount would eventually go away. Expecting this, many broadcasting companies have been wary of moving forward with mergers — without the discount, many of them were already dangerously close to the 39 percent ownership cap.

In 2016, after a long period of debate, the FCC finally eliminated the UHF discount. But under Pai, that decision was quickly reversed in late April. Pai agrees that the UHF discount doesn’t make sense anymore in the age of digital broadcasting. But as he has hinted, he views the UHF discount as a temporary measure until the ownership cap can be increased.

“All I said was, let’s return to the status quo, take a fresh look at the issue, and try to figure out what the optimal structure is for this going forward,” Pai told Recode’s Tony Romm recently.

...

Sinclair is a notable company not just for its size, but for its efforts to inject conservative views into the news.

For instance, over 80 Sinclair stations regularly air a 90-second segment called Behind the Headlines, where conservative commentator Mark Hyman gives his opinions on the news. In a recent spot, Hyman defended Trump’s first 100 days, claiming that the media was unfairly harsh on the president. In February, Hyman criticized the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for ruling against Trump’s travel ban on people from seven Muslim countries.

The company also produces national news segments — often with a conservative tinge — that it requires stations to run during their local news broadcasts.

A Washington Post investigation revealed that during 2016 election, Sinclair executives often forced their stations to run pro-Trump or anti-Clinton segments during their evening or morning local news programs. One of the mandatory segments emphasized problems about Clinton’s health and questioned her trustworthiness. Another mandatory segment featured Ivanka Trump talking about her potential role in her father’s White House.

In December, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly bragged that the Trump campaign had struck a deal with Sinclair executives to provide exclusive interviews during the primaries and presidential campaign, which Sinclair agreed to run as-is, without any commentary. Sinclair’s current network of stations covers many key swing states, and the deal seems to have been aimed at increasing Trump’s exposure in those parts of the nation.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

So Sinclair gets ahead of the game and reaches 72% of households, and there is no way a Trump controlled FCC will make a rule forcing Sinclair to sell any stations. So whatever the % of households Sinclair has access to will be the the new maximum. And possibly the new maximum may be higher.

And possibly the more worrying thing coming out of Ajit Pai is his planned attack on net neutrality. gofccyourself.com

 

[Kalbear]

 

[ThinkerX]

Ran across some odd posts in the comments sections of political articles.  Can't confirm, but maybe somebody here knows. 

 

Supposedly, the crew of the 'West Wing' is upset because they can't 'out-crazy' Trump. 

[A True Kaniggit]

52 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Supposedly, the crew of the 'West Wing' is upset because they can't 'out-crazy' Trump. 

I heard Veep had the same problem.  

[OldGimletEye]

Today in Orange Swamp Thing, Drainer of Swamps and Hero of The Proletariat:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/trump-tax-plan-would-give-400-highest-income-americans-more-than-15-million-a

Quote

President Trump’s tax plan contains specific, costly tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations but only vague promises for working families.[1] Even accounting for his proposal to restrict most itemized deductions, the top 1 percent would still receive annual tax cuts averaging at least $250,000 per household. But the tax cuts at the very top would be far larger. The 400 highest-income taxpayers — whose incomes average more than $300 million a year — would get average tax cuts of at least $15 million a year each, we estimate from IRS data.  Their annual tax cuts would be more than five times the typical college graduate’s lifetime earnings.[2]  (See Figure 1.)  The total tax cut for these 400 households would be at least $6 billion annually.

 

[all swedes are racist]

5 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Ran across some odd posts in the comments sections of political articles.  Can't confirm, but maybe somebody here knows. 

 

Supposedly, the crew of the 'West Wing' is upset because they can't 'out-crazy' Trump. 

i have heard similar things from the @rogueWHjanitor twitter account; seems legit

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Today in Orange Swamp Thing, Drainer of Swamps and Hero of The Proletariat:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/trump-tax-plan-would-give-400-highest-income-americans-more-than-15-million-a

I don't see anything in there where Nasty LongRider gets her pony.  I want my damn pony.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

I don't see anything in there where Nasty LongRider gets her pony.  I want my damn pony.

Patience Grasshopper

You must learn the ways of Supply Side Fu.

You give the top 1% one thousand ponies and then some of those ponies will trickle down to you.

[Inigima]

Holy shit Roger Ailes just died

[Dr. Pepper]

Before the chorus of posters come through claiming we must respect people and their legacies once they die, I'm just gonna say Good Fucking Riddance.  The world is the tiniest bit of a better place without him.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Patience Grasshopper

You must learn the ways of Supply Side Fu.

You give the top 1% one thousand ponies and then some of those ponies will trickle down to you.

Something from the ponies I'm getting will trickle down.  Something.....

I mean seriously, I'm a tax professional.  I'm relatively conservative.  This is just gross.  Bad policy on multiple levels.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Before the chorus of posters come through claiming we must respect people and their legacies once they die, I'm just gonna say Good Fucking Riddance.  The world is the tiniest bit of a better place without him.

I see no need to be respectful.  Or, put better, this seems like an appropriate epitaph.

[LongRider]

The quote function a complete mess for me today.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Before the chorus of posters come through claiming we must respect people and their legacies once they die, I'm just gonna say Good Fucking Riddance.  The world is the tiniest bit of a better place without him.

Even the people on MSNBC are praising him. He's one of the worst people to ever live. He was a serial rapist who destroyed modern politics. He couldn't have died soon enough. 

[Fez]

23 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Holy shit Roger Ailes just died

The world just got a little better.

[LongRider]

re; Roger Ailes.....they can't bury him deep enough.

 

 

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Something from the ponies I'm getting will trickle down.  Something.....

I mean seriously, I'm a tax professional.  I'm relatively conservative.  This is just gross.  Bad policy on multiple levels.

I'm nowhere close to being 1%, but if this goes through, the incentive for me and all my advanced degree-holding professional friends to establish our own sole proprietorships or S-corps to get in on that sweet pass-through action will be way too great to ignore. 

This would cost even more than what's being estimated.