Jump to content
DMC

U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Michael Cohen will voluntarily appear before the Congressional Oversight Committee, in public, and then a private appearance before at least one other committee before he heads off to prison.

Have to assume with this, Mueller's investigation is wrapping up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Have to assume with this, Mueller's investigation is wrapping up.

Rosenstein has said he’s leaving in a few months and that he’s leaving when Mueller is finished with his investigation. So it’s probably done by the end of March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This news about the polling information shared by Manafort gets more and more interesting. The pollster, this Fabrizio character, worked with Manafort and the Russian-backed Ukrainian government in the Ukraine. The buggers all knew each other and worked with each other.

The confidential polling data cannot even be shared in the US (the Republicans could not share it with PACs, for example), why the hell would it be legal to share it with Russians. Yesterday the Republicans sent their surrogates out to the media to pooh-pooh the importance of the news story by saying the election was over, the information waxn’t confidential, and so what if they met up when they both happened to be in the same city in Europe. No collusion!

And today I heard the WH has added 17 lawyers to their staff. It’s expected they are going to argue the Mueller report should not be made public or should be heavily redacted. Executive privilege should apply.

Share this post


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

And today I heard the WH has added 17 lawyers to their staff. It’s expected they are going to argue the Mueller report should not be made public or should be heavily redacted. Executive privilege should apply.

Do they think that would help?

Anybody willing to bet that an unredacted version will fall off a lorry in front of the NYT or WaPo?

This thing will end up in the public no matter what.

Share this post


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

Rosenstein has said he’s leaving in a few months and that he’s leaving when Mueller is finished with his investigation. So it’s probably done by the end of March.

Or... the House is trying to fit in a date for Cohen to testify before he goes to jail, and Rosenstein wants to leave after the new AG is transitioned into place and move onto something less stressful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test of steel prototype for border wall showed it could be sawed through
A photo shows that the steel columns were breached with a common industrial tool.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/test-steel-prototype-border-wall-showed-it-could-be-sawed-n956856

Quote

 

President Donald Trump has repeatedly advocated for a steel slat design for his border wall, which he described as "absolutely critical to border security" in his Oval Office address to the nation Tuesday. But Department of Homeland Security testing of a steel slat prototype proved it could be cut through with a saw, according to a report by DHS.

A photo exclusively obtained by NBC News shows the results of the test after military and Border Patrol personnel were instructed to attempt to destroy the barriers with common tools.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And today I heard the WH has added 17 lawyers to their staff. It’s expected they are going to argue the Mueller report should not be made public or should be heavily redacted. Executive privilege should apply.

How does this differ from Nixon's tapes? Anyways, from what I've read, the House can get it's hands on the report and read in verbatim on the floor of the House.

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

Or... the House is trying to fit in a date for Cohen to testify before he goes to jail, and Rosenstein wants to leave after the new AG is transitioned into place and move onto something less stressful.

I could have sworn I read an article on the issue, but this was the best I could find:

https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/mueller-s-investigation-might-be-ending-soon-1423374403872

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 8:23 AM, Maithanet said:

I often struggle with trying to figure out why Trump does anything.  But this seems like one of two things:

I'm beginning to think it was neither of those. One of the few things Trump understands is branding, and given all his comments from the speech on, it appears he's trying to conflate border security and the wall. He's done that before, but now it's a full court press. Previously he would always talk about the wall as a central theme, but lately he's been much more focused on border security and then throws the wall or whatever you want to call it in at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Mueller's investigative scope was limited to the election and the Russians, so presumably he wasn't able to talk to Cohen about any other illegal stuff Trump did in the past.  But presumably the house would be able to do so. Are they able to do any type of deal for immunity? If he's really turned on Trump as recent statements of his says, then if he had immunity he might disclose an awful lot more than Mueller likely ever asked about (because his hands were tied).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty crushing if the rumors are true that Ginsburg will be replaced soon.  How long can Breyer hold out?  Trump could easily get four justices in one term.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Pretty crushing if the rumors are true that Ginsburg will be replaced soon.  How long can Breyer hold out?  Trump could easily get four justices in one term.  

Where is this coming from?

Share this post


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

Where is this coming from?

From this, which I realize by itself isn't something to take to the bank, but I swear I saw something earlier today suggesting she's thinking about walking away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt Ginsburg is going anywhere. She'll rest for a while, but chances are that she'll be back in February:

Quote

Despite the seriousness of the lung operation, she left open the possibility that she might return for the two-week January oral arguments that began last Monday. A survivor of two prior cancer surgeries, in 1999 and 2009, Ginsburg had made it a point of pride that she missed no oral arguments during those episodes.

But this time that was not possible.

A court spokeswoman said it is not known when Ginsburg would return. Next Monday, when another round of arguments begins, has not been ruled out. But the justice could have as a surer goal of the February sitting, which follows a scheduled four-week Supreme Court recess and begins February 19.

They have a month off in any case so she's not missing much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate Silver just came out with an article articulating "the 5 corners of the Democratic primary."  This is basically a sequel to his "5-ring circus" depiction of the Republican primary in 2016 - which I enjoyed even if in hindsight it seems entirely pointless.  Still, it's intuitive to split up the primary electorate into these type of factions and then estimate each candidate's constituency(ies).  Plus I think it's informative to organize the candidates in such a way at this point in the cycle. 

I found it interesting that according to Silver, Kirsten Gillibrand is basically perfectly balanced between his five constituencies of the Democratic primary electorate.  Right now, if I'm being honest, I lean toward Harris, but I think Gillibrand is almost a sleeper at this point considering her relative lack of hype - and I expect her to outperform expectations (or at least current expectations).

Anyway, since almost everyone here leans left, or is at least is clearly anti-Trump, I thought it be interesting to see everyone's self-placement on these "5 corners" of the Democratic primary electorate.  The 5 constituencies are party loyalists, the left, "millennials and friends," black voters, and hispanic voters.  Obviously, there's overlap for virtually every individual between these five factions.  How do you think you fit? 

For me, I'd split it 40% party loyalist, 40% millennial, and 20% leftist.  Electability is of primary importance to me, which generally aligns with party loyalists.  I also strongly prefer a more youthful candidate, which speaks to the millennial in me.  But, I also think there should be a more distinct and aggressive "leftist" (or progressive or liberal or whatever) platform for the candidate, which accounts for the remaining 20%.

Share this post


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

Nate Silver just came out with an article articulating "the 5 corners of the Democratic primary."  This is basically a sequel to his "5-ring circus" depiction of the Republican primary in 2016 - which I enjoyed even if in hindsight it seems entirely pointless.  Still, it's intuitive to split up the primary electorate into these type of factions and then estimate each candidate's constituency(ies).  Plus I think it's informative to organize the candidates in such a way at this point in the cycle. 

I found it interesting that according to Silver, Kirsten Gillibrand is basically perfectly balanced between his five constituencies of the Democratic primary electorate.  Right now, if I'm being honest, I lean toward Harris, but I think Gillibrand is almost a sleeper at this point considering her relative lack of hype - and I expect her to outperform expectations (or at least current expectations).

Anyway, since almost everyone here leans left, or is at least is clearly anti-Trump, I thought it be interesting to see everyone's self-placement on these "5 corners" of the Democratic primary electorate.  The 5 constituencies are party loyalists, the left, "millennials and friends," black voters, and hispanic voters.  Obviously, there's overlap for virtually every individual between these five factions.  How do you think you fit? 

For me, I'd split it 40% party loyalist, 40% millennial, and 20% leftist.  Electability is of primary importance to me, which generally aligns with party loyalists.  I also strongly prefer a more youthful candidate, which speaks to the millennial in me.  But, I also think there should be a more distinct and aggressive "leftist" (or progressive or liberal or whatever) platform for the candidate, which accounts for the remaining 20%.

At this point I'm 100% Stalinist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's bleak.  It's the mustache, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the Senior Senator from South Carolina is now encouraging Trump to use “Emergency Powers” to strip money from the DOD to “build the wall”.  Lindsey Graham already doesn’t believe in individual liberties (he thinks the State should be able to search closed mail to look for terrorists).  Now, he has demonstrated that he fundamentally doesn’t care how a Representative Republic is supposed to operate.  Graham needs to go:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/politics/lindsey-graham-government-shutdown/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

How do you think you fit? 

For me, I'd split it 40% party loyalist, 40% millennial, and 20% leftist.  Electability is of primary importance to me, which generally aligns with party loyalists.  I also strongly prefer a more youthful candidate, which speaks to the millennial in me.  But, I also think there should be a more distinct and aggressive "leftist" (or progressive or liberal or whatever) platform for the candidate, which accounts for the remaining 20%.

I don't know exactly how to fill this out.  I am mostly a party loyalist, with a little bit of millennial.  The other three don't really fit me very well, since I am not a minority and do not consider myself a leftist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

At this point I'm 100% Stalinist.

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well that's bleak.  It's the mustache, isn't it?

Nah, it’s because he was a stud muffin as a youth, with hair that every boy band member would kill for…..

Share this post


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

×