Jump to content

US Politics: I Don't Like Mondays


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Who said it was?  It's the fault of the reps and sens, yes?  SCOTUS, appellate court justices, and so on?

Well, I originally responded to you questioning who's enforcing the rules, and I figured that was a criticism of the DOJ when they are, in the cases of Navarro and Bannon, actually enforcing the rules as much as they can.  Sorry if I misinterpreted.

But yeah to your point, the criminal penalties for contempt are statutory, so naturally the legislature itself is to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, I originally responded to you questioning who's enforcing the rules, and I figured that was a criticism of the DOJ when they are, in the cases of Navarro and Bannon, actually enforcing the rules as much as they can.  Sorry if I misinterpreted.

But yeah to your point, the criminal penalties for contempt are statutory, so naturally the legislature itself is to blame.

Thanks -- I wasn't trying to be critical or oppositional to you personally and your response.

What I am, remain, is boggled how little the rules, regs, etc. ever apply to these ilks,* down to, up to, actual, you know, insurrection and coups.  Also the voters. but nevermind them -- a big buncha think the US government should be overthrown, along with democracy, because it timidly tried to get people to mask and vax against a virus that was spread by breathing with each other in our faces and killing our parents.

* Yet, when it comes to Dems, Al Franken stepped down, meekly, accepting he should for doing something icky in a photo -- and it was icky -- but he'd been getting better, like a lot of men have been since those days, trying to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So turns out John Fetterman, or at least his wife/campaign, lied about having a previous heart condition:

Quote

The Fetterman campaign had said previously that the pacemaker was helping regulate his atrial fibrillation, an irregular heart rhythm also known as A-fib, which led to his stroke in May. But outside doctors said that defibrilators are not used to treat A-fib, and questioned if he had another heart condition.

Ramesh Chandra, Fetterman’s cardiologist, said in the letter that Fetterman did not follow doctor’s orders after the 2017 appointment. Chandra also diagnosed Fetterman with atrial fibrillation at the time. [...]

His doctor added that he saw Fetterman in a follow-up visit on Thursday, and told the lieutenant governor that while A-fib caused his stroke, “he also has a condition called cardiomyopathy, which is why doctors in Lancaster chose to implant the device.”

I like how the Pennsylvania Senate race is rehashing West Wing plots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really get it. I mean why lie about this? A simple. Yeah, I have a heart condition, that's why I have a pacemaker. I doesn't impair my ability to serve in the Senate. I intend to serve the people of Pennsylvania until I am a 100, or I will die trying. Should've sufficed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I don't really get it.

Me neither.  My favorite part is I did read just a few days ago his wife (Gisele) state that there wasn't any previous condition.  Which is why it's so strikingly similar to West Wing.  "The things we do to women."

Anyway I don't think it will damage him much, not a big deal.  Maybe he can spin his avoidance of doctors (which I can readily empathize) into a campaign message against Oz.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Jesus Christ. That poor man is a goddamn hero.

Those useless cowardly bullies should be yelled at like that every day, on camera, for the rest of their lives.

Yes.  A thousand times, yes.  Law enforcement in Uvalde was holding back parents who wanted to confront the shooter.  They refused to let people with the courage to act… act.  

How anyone can willingly show their face in an Uvalde Police Department uniform is beyond me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's important to remember that the hiring policies of most police departments is shockingly bad. They literally seek out the most average candidates. The best and the brightest they've never been. But willing to abuse power? Oh fuck yeah, straight A's in that course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero confidence in this. It sounds to me like Garland will let himself be paralyzed by norms. Another Presidential election is fast approaching. Garland then will run into the norm of not prosecuting a former President near an election, especially if he's running. And he will of course happily wrap himself in the straight jacket at that point. 

So maybe we're looking at a 2025-2026 timetable for prosecution. If it happens. If the Democratic party candidate wins again.

 

Merrick Garland "fears no person," says legal scholar Norm Eisen — and he's coming for Trump
Author of "Overcoming Trumpery" says "methodical" Garland is still building a case against Trump and his regime

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/30/merrick-garland-fears-no-person-says-legal-scholar-norm-eisen--and-hes-coming-for/

 

Quote

 

Why isn't Donald Trump in prison? Why haven't Trump's inner circle and the other coup plotters been prosecuted?

The Jan. 6 hearings in the House are going to be very important. The DOJ typically starts at the bottom and works their way up the food chain. They've done that with the hundreds of insurrectionists that they've charged. We know they're asking them about the involvement of the White House and other members of the inner circle. There are other signs that are pointing, at the very least, to a DOJ investigation.

Is Merrick Garland afraid to prosecute Trump and other members of his inner circle because of "norms" and "precedent" about holding a former president accountable? What do you think the legal and political calculus is?

Garland fears no person. I've known him for years and he is a great American jurist and lawyer. He has said that he's going to follow the evidence where it leads and apply the law without fear or favor. He's going to let the chips fall where they may.  I believe him. He's very methodical. He's very deliberate.

Merrick Garland is a great American jurist. He needed to get things settled down in the DOJ before he made a momentous move. I have a lot of confidence in his decision-making.

There's some element of not bumping into the Jan. 6 committee's work. There are strong norms at work here: You don't stampede into prosecuting a president.

Garland also needed to restore another kind of norm — and that was the norm of a properly functioning Department of Justice. He's only a year and a half into his tenure, if even that long. He needed to get things settled down in the DOJ before he made such a momentous move. I have a lot of confidence in Merrick Garland's decision-making.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DMC said:

BTW, new reports the DOJ won't charge Meadows or Scavino.

Saw that in the WaPo.  Sigh.

ETA -- Scott got to the Uvalde mom who got out her kids before I did. Partner played me a twitter video this AM of that mother who went in and got her kids out, after being stopped and cuffed by the cops to prevent her.  She's now being threatened with reprisals by the heroic Uvalde police dept. for speaking out in public.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems Pete Arredondo Police Chief of the Uvalde CISD Police Department, the “Commander on the scene” of the Robb Elementary School shooting (and recently sworn in member of the Uvalde City Council) didn’t have his radio with him and couldn’t have the reports of calls from students inside the classrooms desperately calling for help relayed to him as a result.

It also seems that the team that breached and killed the shooter did so against direct orders.  Wow.  

I’m just floored.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/us/uvalde-police-response.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Raja said:

Reading that, it seems that there were some serious errors made by the person leading the police.

Or he was so frightened by the kid with the rifle he was frozen into inaction.  Hence… people outside his direct ability to punish taking action against his orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...