Mexal Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Anybody else would like to hear Trump utter the following words: Get me Michael Cohen, he is my lawyer. He is in cell block B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 11, 2019 Author Share Posted January 11, 2019 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%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 11, 2019 Author Share Posted January 11, 2019 Well that's bleak. It's the mustache, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 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….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Life imitating art in the most startling way I’ve ever seen: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trackdown-trump-character-wall/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 11, 2019 Author Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Maithanet said: I don't know exactly how to fill this out. It's definitely a broad strokes kind of thing anyway. I just slapped percentages on there to give a clearer picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.