Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, DMC said:

She has no reason or need to agree to such terms.  And I'm pretty sure such terms would be unprecedented anyway.  Like I've said before, I just really don't like the look that the top 3 are the same people we welcomed in 12 years ago.  And they're all about to be 80.  If I was still working on campaigns I could have a field day.

Opposition to her as party leader is slowly growing within her own party on both wings, there are no heir apparents, she's 78 years old and most of her party's leadership is also in their 70s, so a massive change in leadership and getting the replacements up to snuff has to happen soon regardless of anything else, most of the names being put forward to replace her are currently more conservative than she is and would take the party in a direction she might not want to see it go, the selection process and infighting (whether it happens now or in a few years from now when the party needs to replace her no matter what) could prove a dangerous and costly distraction, especially if it plays out in real time before a Republican opposition once again united behind "We're just going to be anti everything Democrats do", and so on and so forth.

The current political situation may not be enough to force her to such terms, but the larger reality is offering plenty of reasons. If it keeps the blue dogs from making trouble and sets up the party for the future, that alone would make it an excellent political move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Chuck Schumer is such a fucking loser, and as bigoted as anyone in the GOP. 

Working with that white supremacist party to build a wall? Get fucked and retire you useless fuck.

$1.5B won't build a $25B wall. Stop overreacting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

The current political situation may not be enough to force her to such terms, but the larger reality is offering plenty of reasons. If it keeps the blue dogs from making trouble and sets up the party for the future, that alone would make it an excellent political move.

Oh yes, totally agree.  The fact this leadership doesn't already have well-groomed replacements (to be fair, there are a handful, e.g. Ben Ray Lujan, Hakeem Jeffries, Cheri Bustos) is both irresponsible and demonstrates their self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mexal said:

$1.5B won't build a $25B wall. Stop overreacting.

I’m deeply skeptical that $25b will cover even half the costs. And then there’s the annual upkeep…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh yes, totally agree.  The fact this leadership doesn't already have well-groomed replacements (to be fair, there are a handful, e.g. Ben Ray Lujan, Hakeem Jeffries, Cheri Bustos) is both irresponsible and demonstrates their self-interest.

The Facebook hearings alone should have woken everyone up about the age of leadership. You need young blood in the technological age.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mexal said:

$1.5B won't build a $25B wall. Stop overreacting.

And as much as I loathe Trump, his racist vision for America, and the Wall, if wrangling over it (and spending time negotiating over what won't be nearly enough funding to do anything worthwhile for it) keeps Trump and the GOP from trying to sneak through another crazily regressive tax bill that throws billions at corporations and the ultra-rich while undercutting basic services for the bottom 85% of wage earners, then more power to them.

If Schumer can keep Trump focused on whether he'll get pennies or nickels for his Wall instead of pressing the GOP congress to pass another hastily scrawled out tax bill that is basically a hit job on the vast majority of America, I'll applaud him.

Edited by Paladin of Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m deeply skeptical that $25b will cover even half the costs. And then there’s the annual upkeep…..

Probably true, especially with the cost of steel and aluminum these days. My point was more around the overreaction to Schumer offering $1.5B to get some Dem priorities done like that amount of money would actually do anything other than enhance non wall security features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how is Manafort talk not dominating the thread? The MFer has been leaking to Trump the entire time. How is it legal to have a joint defense agreement with Trump while cooperating with Mueller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, how is Manafort talk not dominating the thread? The MFer has been leaking to Trump the entire time. How is it legal to have a joint defense agreement with Trump while cooperating with Mueller?

It’s not and he’s likely to spend the remainder of his life behind bars for violating his plea agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s not and he’s likely to spend the remainder of his life behind bars for violating his plea agreement.

Assuming Trump doesn't pardon him, which, given the loyalty he's shown, is likely.  He still has state crimes to worry about, but this isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Assuming Trump doesn't pardon him, which, given the loyalty he's shown, is likely.  He still has state crimes to worry about, but this isn't one of them.

The question then is whether it is obstruction of justice for Trump to pardon someone in this context.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The question then is whether it is obstruction of justice for Trump to pardon someone in this context.  

According to 2/3rds of Senators?  Do you really think there's any question?  I do not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Zorral said:

His associates hang out with those guys who did for Whitey Bolger?  :lol:  It's hard to think, though, there's anything Manafort and all those ilks within which the ilks move wouldn't do if it felt like the right thing -- or even if it didn't feel like the right thing.  The orange nazi and his cohorts have been mobbed up for generations all ready -- like just about everybody who plays real estate games in places like NYC, London, LA, Houston,, etc.

Nope, not the Whitey Bolger folks.

I was surprised back then that Manafort of all people would flip, because some of his business associates are or have somewhat closer ties to (former) KGB/FSB guys (basically Russian oligarchs). So a Litvinenko on the rocks is not a particularly pleasent outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

According to 2/3rds of Senators?  Do you really think there's any question?  I do not. 

Clinton was subject to a civil suit while in office.  Shouldn’t Trump be subject to criminal prosecution while in office?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Clinton was subject to a civil suiy while in office.  Shouldn’t Trump be subject to criminal prosecution while in office?

Clinton was subject to a civil suit for actions he took prior to taking office.  Anything the President does while in office that can be even vaguely considered part of being President (and pardoning someone definitely qualifies) cannot be the subject of prosecution.  If the President is acting illegally, it is up to Congress to remove him first, then he can be charged.

Not trying to be a jerk, but don't you already know this?  I mean, I'm not a lawyer, and you are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, how is Manafort talk not dominating the thread? The MFer has been leaking to Trump the entire time. How is it legal to have a joint defense agreement with Trump while cooperating with Mueller?

One of the nicer theories I have read, and it is probably wishful thinking, is that this collaboration may have hurt them in more ways than one. They may have agreed on a lie about something Mueller already knew and the interesting question is whether Trump’s recently submitted answers in any way resemble the falsehoods Manfort told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Clinton was subject to a civil suit for actions he took prior to taking office.  Anything the President does while in office that can be even vaguely considered part of being President (and pardoning someone definitely qualifies) cannot be the subject of prosecution.  If the President is acting illegally, it is up to Congress to remove him first, then he can be charged.

Not trying to be a jerk, but don't you already know this?  I mean, I'm not a lawyer, and you are...

Some of this is up in the air and may be open to interpretation.  We may finally find out if a President can pardon himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Morpheus said:

One of the nicer theories I have read, and it is probably wishful thinking, is that this collaboration may have hurt them in more ways than one. They may have agreed on a lie about something Mueller already knew and the interesting question is whether Trump’s recently submitted answers in any way resemble the falsehoods Manfort told.

Wouldn't that be textbook Obstruction of Justice?

45 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Assuming Trump doesn't pardon him, which, given the loyalty he's shown, is likely.  He still has state crimes to worry about, but this isn't one of them.

Loyalty is one way traffic for Trump. A pardon hugely depends on what Manafort has on him, and how likely he is to use it. Given that it could also embarass his Russian business associates, I think Trump could run the risk of Manafort not dropping the goods on him. Still a bit of a gamble, but I think 70%-80% at the very least that Manafort will keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

One of the nicer theories I have read, and it is probably wishful thinking, is that this collaboration may have hurt them in more ways than one. They may have agreed on a lie about something Mueller already knew and the interesting question is whether Trump’s recently submitted answers in any way resemble the falsehoods Manfort told.

It’s tough to tell. We don’t know if Mueller always assumed Manafort was a snake or if he assumed he was really on his side once he flipped him. I’d like to think he was smart enough to always assume the former, but it’s possible he was overconfident and assumed the latter.

Either way though it’s not a good look for Trump’s legal team. People who innocent behave like they’re innocent. And people who are guilty and smart still behave like they’re innocent. Trump et al. have been behaving like they’re the guiltiest people on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not certain of that.  We will see.

Yeah, the previous case on this topic, though not a direct analog, was Lozman v. Rivera Beach; which was an 8-1 decision with only Thomas dissenting. Kennedy being replaced by Kavanaugh is the only change the bench since then.

Thomas has very peculiar and specific legal opinions, and Kavanaugh may very well be a purely political creature, but Roberts/Alito/Gorsuch aren't hacks; especially Roberts. They are extremely conservative on many issues and want to eventually overturn Lockner, but there's a reason over 40% of cases last year were still decided 9-0 or 8-1 and another 30% were 7-2 or 6-3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×