DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Time for a new thread and this story hasn't been mentioned yet: Pelosi and Schumer: Trump Labor Secretary Acosta must resign over plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein Quote The top Democrats in Congress have called on Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to resign over a past plea deal he cut as a U.S. attorney that gave a light sentence to multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who had allegedly engaged in sex acts with dozens of minors. In an 11 p.m. tweet on Monday, Pelosi said Acosta "must step down" because "he engaged in an unconscionable agreement" with Epstein, which was "kept secret from courageous, young victims preventing them from seeking justice. This was known by @POTUS when he appointed him to the cabinet. #AcostaResign." On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he was "calling on Secretary Acosta to resign" during a speech from Senate floor. "It is now impossible for anyone to have confidence in Secretary Acosta's ability to lead the Department of Labor. If he refuses to resign President Trump should fire him," Schumer said. "Instead of prosecuting a predatory and serial sex trafficker of children, Acosta chose to let him off easy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Fair enough, Kal. Regarding Epstein, these denials of knowledge are a joke. Everyone knew about the rumors a decade ago. They were something my classmates discussed in college when we wondered if they’d affect Hillary’s ’08 run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 40 minutes ago, DMC said: Time for a new thread and this story hasn't been mentioned yet: Pelosi and Schumer: Trump Labor Secretary Acosta must resign over plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein And yet... "Speaker Pelosi essentially rules out the House impeaching/investigating Acosta. 'It's up to the President, it's his cabinet. We have a great deal of work to do here for the good of the American people and we have to focus on that.'" I've gone from questioning her fitness, to having respect, to thinking she's long past her prime and should be pushed out. Schumer too. Antiquated old balls and bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: I've gone from questioning her fitness, to having respect, to thinking she's long past her prime and should be pushed out. It's getting very difficult to defend her, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 48 minutes ago, DMC said: Time for a new thread and this story hasn't been mentioned yet: Pelosi and Schumer: Trump Labor Secretary Acosta must resign over plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein 8 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: And yet... "Speaker Pelosi essentially rules out the House impeaching/investigating Acosta. 'It's up to the President, it's his cabinet. We have a great deal of work to do here for the good of the American people and we have to focus on that.'" I've gone from questioning her fitness, to having respect, to thinking she's long past her prime and should be pushed out. Schumer too. Antiquated old balls and bags. I just experienced strategic whiplash reading the Speakers' comments. 1st reaction: "FUCK YEAH! Pedophilia enablement is a fucking layup, release the hounds." 2nd reaction: "Republicans are actually cool with pedophilia these days as long as it's owning the libs." 3rd reaction: "calling for his resignation but not impeaching is probably the way to go. He wouldn't be successfully removed, but this does put the onus on Republicans to defend pedophilia without exposing a Democratic flank." So in finality I think it's a conservative but prudent move by Pelosi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 I don't know, Jace. I'm an outsider, obviously [Canadian] and while not making comparisons I find Pelosi's leadership sauce about a strongly flavored as water. I cannot imagine how frustrating her lack of resolve must be for progressives in the US to tangibly hold the criminals in the Trump admin accountable in any way. Where you see prudence, I see examples that could further entrench the idea that the democratic political elite don't actually give a shit if it could have any potential 'cost' for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Sure, I commiserate with the frustration. But she can only open investigations that will do nothing but harm the party's chances of ousting him. Doesn't she have a responsibility to protect Democrats from their own (morally just) destructive urges? That's what a leader does. Make hard decisions. I think it's pretty clear that she's putting all of the Democratic chips on "for the love of god, vote" and protecting the rest of the party from wasting political capital chasing side bets that have no chance of paying out. Just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 I think that's a reasonable strategy. The other strategy is to constantly harass and investigate Trump over and over again, make his administration look like it's corrupt and incompetent, and keep that in the news as much as possible. And honestly, Acosta being appointed as the person who is actually responsible for dealing with human trafficking being even peripherally involved with Epstein is a slam dunk thing to impeach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 Yeah I am all for the leadership protecting the majority, but Pelosi's caution is getting a little grating. She should be more aggressive on his tax returns, politically. She should be more aggressive on impeaching Acosta, politically. If it's such an outrage - which it is - then put it on the table. We are in the age of outrage. It's time to vent it somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, DMC said: Yeah I am all for the leadership protecting the majority, but Pelosi's caution is getting a little grating. She should be more aggressive on his tax returns, politically. She should be more aggressive on impeaching Acosta, politically. If it's such an outrage - which it is - then put it on the table. We are in the age of outrage. It's time to vent it somewhere. Senate Republicans would be delighted to vote to acquit Trump for crimes, but the same can't be said for Acosta. Nobody is going to the mattresses for that guy. Trump would order somebody to fire Acosta long before impeachment took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Just now, Maithanet said: Senate Republicans would be delighted to vote to acquit Trump for crimes, but the same can't be said for Acosta. Nobody is going to the mattresses for that guy. Trump would order somebody to fire Acosta long before impeachment took place. And that's fine! But right now he's protecting Acosta. And honestly, that's even better. He's actually going to the mat for this asshole, and that can be used against him later. But you can't use it against him if you're unwilling to actually press it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 Just now, Maithanet said: Trump would order somebody to fire Acosta long before impeachment took place. Yup. I wouldn't be surprised if he was fired this afternoon. Acosta is entirely dispensable to Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 Sorry for the double post, and I know this was mentioned before, but I really don't understand why the headline on Drudge right now is Ross Perot's death. I mean, the guy vaguely influenced one election 27 years ago. I dunno, just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 minute ago, DMC said: Sorry for the double post, and I know this was mentioned before, but I really don't understand why the headline on Drudge right now is Ross Perot's death. I mean, the guy vaguely influenced one election 27 years ago. I dunno, just don't get it. Were you around and paying attention at that time? Perot was pretty huge and influential in the election, if not the actual results. He's also very reminiscent of Trumpian viewpoints - he was against NAFTA, against trade in general, against Chinese free markets, he was pretty against US intervention. I'm pretty sure any major candidate who died would get a lot of press. And Perot is pretty influential and odd in his own right. Plus he created the party that Jesse Ventura successfully became Governor from, so that's something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 Just now, Kalbear said: Were you around and paying attention at that time? Well, I was seven, but I'm aware of his influence, yes. Remember the SNL skits. Anyway, you're right, he was very Trumpian on trade way before Trump, I suppose that's why Drudge has a hard-on for him. However, I would not describe someone who does not win a single state as a "major candidate." George Wallace may have been abhorrently racist, but at least he carried (a lot of) the South when he ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 He won 20 million votes or something. That seems pretty major to me. I dunno. I was 18 in 1992 and he was pretty much everywhere - SNL, massive amounts of very weird ads, those hour-long specials he did, the debates, etc. And then he did it again in 96, though not as successfully. He was something of a joke and something of an oddity, but he was definitely very newsworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: I was 18 in 1992 and he was pretty much everywhere - SNL, massive amounts of very weird ads, those hour-long specials he did, the debates, etc. And then he did it again in 96, though not as successfully. He was something of a joke and something of an oddity, but he was definitely very newsworthy. Yeah, my babysitter was around 18 at the time, going off to college, and she couldn't shut up about voting for Perot. Maybe that's why I got a stick up my ass about him. But I don't think 96 was anything to write home about at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 This old quote from Trump makes me laugh/cry: Quote "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 I was Perot in my 1996 middle school's presidential debate. Did the accent and my mom made me big fake ears that clipped onto my glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 News from the 5th circuit regarding ACA is not good, and Republican judges expected to vote along party lines to abolish it in its entirety. Onto the Supreme Court, which will likely abolish at least some of it depending on Roberts viewpoint at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.