US Politics: What Price Loyalty?

[Yukle]

Fascinating that Trump is considering that the TPP is a good idea. That's annoying, as refusing to be part of it was the one thing he got right. That deal is horrific and gives corporations essentially complete control over their own regulations. They could even sue governments in secret! And all analyses said that whatever "growth" was coming was within the calculated margin of error of what you'd expect if they didn't bother doing it.

[Paladin of Ice]

56 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Fascinating that Trump is considering that the TPP is a good idea. That's annoying, as refusing to be part of it was the one thing he got right. That deal is horrific and gives corporations essentially complete control over their own regulations. They could even sue governments in secret! And all analyses said that whatever "growth" was coming was within the calculated margin of error of what you'd expect if they didn't bother doing it.

From what I understand, it was never intended as a growth thing, more as a counterweight to China, a way to steal a bunch of its closer trading partners and pull them into our sphere, and get everybody playing by the same rules so China couldn't pull the shenanigans they've been using against individual companies and countries for decades.

Apparently when the US dropped out earlier this year, a lot of the more onerous copyright copyright and stuff got dropped, as did a few other small things.

[Durckad]

1 hour ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Did we just get flung via trebuchet back to like 1978?

 

Just another sign of the Trump administration's general incompetence.

They were actually aiming for 1938.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Presumably, if Mueller was ready to interview Trump, then he must have been almost finished with the investigation. 

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Surely Mueller might want to get Trump on the record now, establishing his position? These statements can then be explored as part of the investigation, I would have thought. 

I will be quite surprised if Mueller reports very soon. 

 

[Yukle]

5 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

From what I understand, it was never intended as a growth thing, more as a counterweight to China, a way to steal a bunch of its closer trading partners and pull them into our sphere, and get everybody playing by the same rules so China couldn't pull the shenanigans they've been using against individual companies and countries for decades.

Apparently when the US dropped out earlier this year, a lot of the more onerous copyright copyright and stuff got dropped, as did a few other small things.

You're right, I had a look into that. The TPP still looks pretty weak as a response to China's "One Belt - One Road" initiative. There'll be trillions running through a vast Eurasian and African network, on infrastructure paid for on China's credit.

And it'll all run through China. They've even made some somewhat unethical loans to countries such as Bangladesh; knowing they'd never be repaid they've waived the repayments in exchange for 99 years of access to Bangladesh's crucial ports. Similarly, several African nations have had similar deals. It's hard to judge it too harshly, in fairness, as while the agreements to drop loans

in exchange for control of shipping and rail hubs is kind of predatory, it is also true that China's investments throughout the developing world are more than what is being offered by the Western world at this time.

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Surely Mueller might want to get Trump on the record now, establishing his position? These statements can then be explored as part of the investigation, I would have thought. 

I will be quite surprised if Mueller reports very soon. 

I don't think Mueller would be too fussed if Drumpf testified to him directly. He may be still weighing up the possibility of a subpoena to the Grand Jury. Then again, those who know him well say that he would be unlikely to do this, as he tends to hold a conservative ideal of how the justice system works. A subpoena to a sitting President for a matter relating to his conduct before the election hasn't been done. Unless, as is entirely possible, Mueller wants to interview the orange idiot over something more recent.

Based on previous records of Drumpf in lawsuits, it's clear that he's not a helpful witness. He tends to give very brief, hostile answers.

As a final point: how come there isn't more airtime given to the fact that Donny-boy and Putin had a one-on-one meeting at the G20 (or APEC? Whichever one). The Democrats should be showing that photo every time they speak of him. With the caption, "Putin's Stooge."

[Shryke]

8 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Presumably, if Mueller was ready to interview Trump, then he must have been almost finished with the investigation.  Interviewing Trump would be the final step of the investigation.  It's unlikely to be something Mueller would do in the middle of the investigation.  I am surprised that he hasn't yet interviewed Kushner or Trump Jr. yet.  We'll see if those are done in the next month or so.  My guess is that the investigation is wrapped up before midterms, but we shall see.

I doubt that Mueller is going to try to subpoena Trump.  If Mueller already has the goods on Trump, the grand jury testimony from Trump is unnecessary and would be just for show, which is not Mueller's style.  He gave Trump an opportunity to explain himself and he declined.  Too bad for Trump.  If Mueller doesn't have the goods on Trump, it's hard to justify issuing the subpoena to do a fishing expedition.

They've only said they are looking at wrapping up the investigation into obstruction of justice soon. They had basically finished it minus the Trump interview and were basically prepared to plan and negotiate the interview, do the interview and then follow up on the interview to wrap the whole thing up. But if Trump doesn't wanna talk then everything else is already in place.

This doesn't mean they are done with all the other shit they are digging into though. Which is almost certainly part of why they haven't talked to Trump Jr or Kushner yet. The investigation into Russian interference and financial crimes has not, from anything I've read, been said to be closing up any time soon.

[Shryke]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Few things here. First, it's unlikely the report will ever be released to the public, regardless of what happens. Mueller reports it to Rosenstein, and then Rosenstein can report part or all of it to Congress and make a recommendation if he so chooses. Or he can put it in a desk drawer and never look at it again. The only thing he can't do as far as I know is destroy it. There's a mechanism Congress has to get the report from Rosenstein or his replacement, but I forget how it works and it's not a slam dunk process as far as I can tell. 

AFAIK it doesn't work like this. The report gets turned over to both the majority and minority parties and there's some sort of vote each party can have on what to do with the report. The way it sounded, the Democrats have the opportunity to turn the thing over to the public. Especially if they take back control of Congress.

[Mudguard]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Surely Mueller might want to get Trump on the record now, establishing his position? These statements can then be explored as part of the investigation, I would have thought. 

I will be quite surprised if Mueller reports very soon. 

 

At best, Mueller was only going to get one shot to interview Trump, and it appears that he won't even get that one chance.  You can't reasonably expect the President to come in for multiple interviews, so you have to be as prepared as possible for your one shot.  That means interviewing all the main witnesses and more or less completing the investigation by the time you sit down with the President.  To be able to catch Trump in a lie, or to be able to recognize a discrepancy between Trump's testimony and another witnesses testimony, requires Mueller to have already interviewed the other witnesses and to already know all of the facts, and this would allow Mueller to know what to press Trump on. 

Mueller has already made up his mind regarding obstruction of justice by now.  The interview with Trump would be nice to have, but it's not necessary.  It's one of the main reasons why I never believed Trump was sincere about sitting down for the interview.  Trump has nothing to gain from such an interview.  Mostly, it would be an opportunity to perjure himself or dig the hole he's in even deeper.

Regarding the timing of a report from Mueller, I think at least a report on obstruction of justice will be done before the midterm elections, maybe in about 3 to 6 months.  There doesn't seem like there is much left for Mueller to look at with respect to obstruction of justice. 

That he hasn't talked yet to Kushner or Trump Jr. may mean that the collusion report will come later, but it's possible that they'll be interviewed in the next couple of months, which might allow the collusion case to also be wrapped up before the midterms.  Manafort's trial is set for July, so Mueller might still be hoping that Manafort flips before the trial is concluded.  Depending on whether Manafort flips or not, Mueller may have all the information he needs by around August or September, and could possibly issue the report in anther 2 to 3 months.  The collusion case is much more complicated though, so it could take longer.

Mueller knows that his time to run the investigation without impediments may be limited.  I doubt that he is going to drag out the investigation, and it makes sense for him to break the issues apart and issue reports as expeditiously as possible, hopefully before Trump can shut it down or interfere with it.

[Mudguard]

19 minutes ago, Shryke said:

AFAIK it doesn't work like this. The report gets turned over to both the majority and minority parties and there's some sort of vote each party can have on what to do with the report. The way it sounded, the Democrats have the opportunity to turn the thing over to the public. Especially if they take back control of Congress.

My understanding is that Mueller gives a report explaining his decisions to prosecute or not prosecute various charges to Rosenstein, or whoever is supervising Mueller's investigation when he completes his report.  Then Rosenstein must pass along an explanation of Mueller's decisions to the House and Senate Judiciary committees (both parties get this).  However, Rosenstein is not obligated to pass along the entire report.  It's up to Rosenstein how much of the report he passes along.  He could pass along the entire report to Congress, which then could make the report public, or he could just pass along a summary that he prepared.  Rosenstein also has the authority himself to make the report public.

[DMC]

54 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

However, Rosenstein is not obligated to pass along the entire report.  It's up to Rosenstein how much of the report he passes along.  He could pass along the entire report to Congress, which then could make the report public, or he could just pass along a summary that he prepared.  Rosenstein also has the authority himself to make the report public.

Pretty much.  First of all, based on his steadfast support for the investigation, there is no reason to believe Rosenstein will not make the report public.  Trump will have to fire him and find someone willing to sit on it.  Second, as mentioned by someone above, there would be massive public pressure to release the report, and there would almost certainly be leaks if the DOJ was suppressing significant charges against Trump.  Third, Congress can most certainly simply subpoena the report if they wish to do - this is why retaking the House is so important:

Quote

It seems quite likely that a Justice Department under increasing pressure from the White House would make every effort to keep the report secret. On the other hand, there is nothing in the special counsel regulations or any applicable law that requires secrecy in such a case. If it were to become known that such a report existed, someone in Congress could request it. And if Democrats gained control of either house of Congress in 2018—a precondition for impeachment in any case—they would also gain the power to subpoena the report.

Actually, that article is worth an entire read and includes some other interesting tidbits:

Quote

The DOJ’s special counsel regulations provide that if a special counsel proposes an action that the DOJ rejects because it would be “inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices,” then the responsible party at the DOJ must notify both the chairs and ranking minority members of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of the special counsel’s proposed action and an “explanation” of the reason for rejecting that action.

Hence, Mueller would be operating entirely according to protocol if, while not actually presenting an indictment to a grand jury, he recommended to Rosenstein that Trump be indicted. He would, of course, realize that doing so would contravene an existing OLC opinion. However, there would be nothing untoward if he concluded, with the concurrence of the superb appellate lawyers on his staff, that the OLC opinion should be reconsidered. OLC conclusions are subject to internal re-evaluation all the time.

Of course, we can fairly predict that Mueller’s arguments, however learned, for changing DOJ policy on this point would be rejected. But rejection of Mueller’s recommendation for indictment on the ground that it contravened “established Departmental practices” would trigger the mandatory report to Congress required by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Section 600.9. Et voila! Members of Congress from both parties, and in due course, the public, would know that Mueller believed Trump committed a crime. [...]

Mueller, by reputation a man who operates strictly by the book, might not be willing to formally propose indicting Trump knowing that the proposal would be summarily rejected as violating existing DOJ policy.

I like to think that, as both an undoubted patriot and a career public servant not unaccustomed to harnessing formalism to larger ends, Mueller would not be averse to engaging in a bit of bureaucratic Kabuki theater in the interests of revealing Trump’s conduct to Congress while there is yet time to do something about it.

The bolded are, as I've mentioned on here multiple times, my sentiments exactly.

[OldGimletEye]

Good bye and good riddance, fraudulent one.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17223942/house-speaker-paul-ryan-fraud

Quote

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is announcing his retirement today, was not the most pernicious figure in American life during his era of prominence, but he was the biggest phony.

 

It seems to me than an extra 15 billion dollars a year is a bargain, particularly when compared to the cost of the corporate tax cut.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/12/gop-proposes-stricter-work-requirements-for-food-stamp-recipients-a-step-toward-a-major-overhaul-of-the-social-safety-net/

Quote

House Republicans took their first step Thursday toward overhauling the federal safety net, pushing for new work requirements in the food-stamp program used by 42 million Americans.
The plan, introduced as part of the 2018 Farm Bill over objections of Democrats, would dramatically expand mandatory state workfare programs in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps.

 

Quote

In addition, the proposal would fund a massive expansion of state education and training or “workfare” programs and mandate, for the first time, that unemployed, working-age SNAP recipients enroll. States will be required to offer a slot to every adult who is eligible, up from the 700,000 slots currently in use. 

“There’s a kernel of a good idea here,” said Kermit Kaleba, federal policy director at the National Skills Coalition, which advocates for workforce development programs. “There is a lot of evidence that high-quality employment and training programs help people with relatively low basic skills move out of minimum wage jobs and into family-supporting careers. The challenge is that these programs are not cheap to run. And our concern, based on what we’ve heard so far, is that it isn’t clear [the Republican proposal] will make a sufficient investment.”

 

Quote

 A Thursday analysisfrom the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated it would cost $15 billion per year to fully fund a national employment and training program.

...................................................................

Now conservative sorts of people. I wanna talk about a serious, serious social problem. And that is the skills gap. The skills gap in upper management that is.

Quote

We all know about the skills shortage Harvard has to pay investment managers millions to lose the school a fortune on its endowment, Facebook can't find a CEO who can avoid compromising its customers' privacy, and restaurant managers apparently don't understand that the way to get more workers is to offer higher pay.

 

Quote

The NYT gives us yet another article complaining about labor shortages.

The horror. The horror.

Quote

This is the story that we should expect to see with restaurants if there really is a labor shortage. We should start to see more rapidly rising wages. The restaurants that can't pay the market wage go under. That may not be pretty, but that's capitalism. We tell that to unemployed and low paid workers all the time.

The problem with a lot of ardent supporters of capitalism is they like it, until they got to pay for things, like wages.

................................................................................................

Yes the balanced budget amendment is a dumb idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/12/the-balanced-budget-amendment-is-a-joke-says-famed-gop-deficit-hawk-alan-simpson/

Quote

One of America's most outspoken critics of the $20 trillion national debt who has spent much of his life putting forward bipartisan solutions to reduce it has a message for Congress: Don't pass the “balanced-budget amendment” this week — or ever.

“It's madness. It won't do anything to help improve the budget,” said Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming. “It's just chest-pounding fakery.”

 

[Martell Spy]

Is It Time for Democrats to Fight Dirty?

A new book argues Democrats should take on radical strategies to cement power

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-democrats-should-rig-the-senate-and-pack-the-supreme-court.html

 

Quote

In his new book, It’s Time to Fight Dirty, the Week’s David Faris argues that Democrats have no choice but to pursue strategies aimed at tilting the balance of power perhaps permanently in their favor. The ideas he advances go far beyond age-old proposals like eliminating the Electoral College. Faris would have the next Democratic Congress and president, for instance, create several new Democratic-leaning states and pack the Supreme Court with new seats for liberal justices

.

[Martell Spy]

Comey: Trump Asked Me to Investigate ‘Pee Tape’ to Prove It Didn’t Exist

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/comey-trump-asked-me-to-prove-the-pee-tape-wasnt-real.html

 

Quote

“He brought up what he called the ‘golden showers thing’ … adding that it bothered him if there was ‘even a 1 percent chance’ his wife, Melania, thought it was true,” Comey writes in A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, according to the New York Post. “He just rolled on, unprompted, explaining why it couldn’t possibly be true, ending by saying he was thinking of asking me to investigate the allegation to prove it was a lie. I said it was up to him.

 

[Martell Spy]

First order of business if the Dems take house. Help Trump out with an extremely thorough investigation of the pee tape.

[Morpheus]

Leakers and liars must be punished!

*pardons Scooter Libby*

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Good bye and good riddance, fraudulent one.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17223942/house-speaker-paul-ryan-fraud

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is announcing his retirement today, was not the most pernicious figure in American life during his era of prominence, but he was the biggest phony.

Yup, that's Yglesias, exactly like I thought. I couldn't think of another Vox writer who hated Ryan like he did. And with good reason.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Comey: Trump Asked Me to Investigate ‘Pee Tape’ to Prove It Didn’t Exist

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/comey-trump-asked-me-to-prove-the-pee-tape-wasnt-real.html

 

If ever you want an example of someone protesting too much, this will come in handy. 

[Fez]

15 hours ago, Shryke said:

Can I just say that this is my favourite bit of this entire interesting analysis?

Yeah. I mean, I think everyone knows the House GOP caucus is mostly male. But even so, I was going through the congressional member spreadsheet I have, and I had to triple-check to make sure I wasn't missing anyone. I thought for sure the gender check would at least push the number down into the 40s.

[Shryke]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah. I mean, I think everyone knows the House GOP caucus is mostly male. But even so, I was going through the congressional member spreadsheet I have, and I had to triple-check to make sure I wasn't missing anyone. I thought for sure the gender check would at least push the number down into the 40s.

Fun chart here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Number_of_women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_party

(thank you Wikipedia for compiling all this information already)

~1/5th of Congress is women and 3/4s of them are Democrats.

It looks like some time in the early 90s the Democrats suddenly had more women and have basically had 2x-3x the number of women as the GOP since then. With the overall amount doubling from about 10% then to about 20% now.

[Jace, Extat]

11 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Did we just get flung via trebuchet back to like 1978?

 

Yeah, but they're re-engineering it to aim for 1855