Jump to content

US politics: calm blue waters


Recommended Posts

Looks like Senate Dems may tie rolling back war powers to the NDAA - a sensible tactic to actually get it passed:

Quote

A push to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.), has garnered bipartisan support. The move, which is backed by President Joe Biden, has yet to come up for a vote despite a pledge last year by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to do so.

That has senators eyeing adding the proposal to the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act to get the job done, mirroring a move by the House last month.

“I’ve talked with Senator Schumer about it [and] he had promised a floor vote on this at some point,” Kaine told POLITICO. “He obviously wants to do it in a way that does not chew up the maximum amount of time, so we’re trying to figure that out.”

This, the election reform bill, and the tech antitrust bill are good things for the Senate Dems to focus on in the fall/winter before the Dems lose the House in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't really care either way, but reading about the race this morning his "pro-police" cred seems far more recent and extensive than just that statement:

Moreover - and this I'm not a huge fan of - this appears to be what he's running on:

 

The ballot question wasn't popular nor was it fully thought out and the city has been ordered by the state SC to hire a minimum number of officers. It's not surprising that a politician from north Minneapolis who came up during the period known as Murderapolis would take the positions he has. As the article says it's a notoriously high crime area a lot of people still avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The ballot question wasn't popular nor was it fully thought out and the city has been ordered by the state SC to hire a minimum number of officers. It's not surprising that a politician from north Minneapolis who came up during the period known as Murderapolis would take the positions he has.

Sure, but actively trying to defeat the measure, as well as leading a lawsuit against the city to maintain police staffing levels, is significantly different than just "a politician taking understandable positions."  The "pro-police" feature appears to be the fundamental aspect to his candidacy, a la Adams in New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Looks like Senate Dems may tie rolling back war powers to the NDAA - a sensible tactic to actually get it passed:

This, the election reform bill, and the tech antitrust bill are good things for the Senate Dems to focus on in the fall/winter before the Dems lose the House in January.

Also the gay marriage bill, which Schumer says they'll vote on in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also the gay marriage bill, which Schumer says they'll vote on in September.

Yeah they should definitely hold that vote, but the other three actually have a chance of passing (albeit I'm probably being too hopeful on the tech antitrust bill).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heather Cox Richardson

[email protected]

sums up what we know. which doesn't include what was presented in the request for the warrant to investigate what he unlawfully took to FL.  This was a lawful, legally sanctioned operation, not a raid, not a break-in.

Quote

 

. . . .  Legal analyst Joyce White Vance reminded people on Twitter: “We don't know yet what crimes the FBI had sufficient evidence of to convince a federal judge there was probable cause to search Trump's residence, but the execution of a search warrant isn't a raid. It's a judicially overseen process.” It appears that the search was about Trump’s removal of classified documents from the White House. (I told you: no one with any brains at all ever messes with archivists.)

As legal analyst Asha Rangappa noted, “a search warrant has to demonstrate probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found in the places and things searched.” And legal analyst Renato Mariotti adds that the Department of Justice doesn’t usually prosecute cases unless the material was deliberately transferred to a third party, and that it is unlikely DOJ would have obtained a search warrant if it did not expect to pursue a case.

Tonight, chief White House correspondent for CNN Kaitlan Collins reported that in early June, investigators had gone to Mar-a-Lago to learn more about the materials Trump had taken when he left the White House. They asked to see where the documents were stored, and Trump’s lawyers took them to a basement room. The search warrant executed today included a safe in Trump’s office, and journalist Laura Rozen reported that agents suspected that Trump had taken and was holding other classified documents after he returned many of them.

Political commentators noted that the law disqualifies from “holding any office under the United States” anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies or destroys…any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk of officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States.” . . . .

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah they should definitely hold that vote, but the other three actually have a chance of passing (albeit I'm probably being too hopeful on the tech antitrust bill).

I wouldn't count out a gay marriage bill.  Tammy Baldwin says in this interview (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/us/politics/gay-marriage-bill-baldwin.html) 5 other Republicans (apart from the 5 who are publicly supportive) have committed to support the bill. 

One of them is likely Mike Lee, who has said he will support it provided religious liberty protections are included in the bill.  I would hope Burr and Blunt as retiring Republicans will also support it.  Paul, Romney maybe?  Graham has come out against it, curiously.  

Edited by Gaston de Foix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The likelihood is that romperisto swiped documents that are so sensitive to national security --

Quote

As The Post reported in February, Trump took 15 boxes of documents with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving office, prompting the National Archives and Records Administration to contact Trump’s team “to alert it that some high-profile documents from his presidency appeared to be missing.” Some of those records are “are so sensitive they may not be able to be described” in an unclassified way.

This is the line the experts in this kind of law and law enforcement have been taking this morning.  Of course, who cares a whit what the experts say.  It's the gut that rules.  This includes speculation as to the likelihood that romperisto is / has been trying to sell them to highest bidders. This speculation would, of course, answer my own ongoing question ever since learning of the thievery -- why is he KEEPING these documents, not destroying them, if they likely reflect so badly on his own illegal and treasonous behaviors?

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I would hope Burr and Blunt as retiring Republicans will also support it.  Paul, Romney maybe?

I would not count on any of those four supporting it, at all (Romney and Burr have both made statements indicating they "don't think it's necessary").  I haven't seen Baldwin saying she effectively already has 10 GOP Senators supporting it, figure that'd be bigger news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump broke a law on the removal of official records, would he be barred from future office?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/us/politics/donald-trump-president-criminal-law.html

Quote

 

. . . .  On Monday, one of the most prominent voices pointing to Section 2071, the Democratic lawyer Marc Elias — who served as general counsel for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — initially cited the law’s disqualification provision in a Twitter post as “the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster in American politics.”

He followed up with another Twitter post acknowledging that any conviction under Section 2071 might not ultimately bar Mr. Trump from seeking the presidency again — but arguing that a legal fight over it would still be important.

“Yes, I recognize the legal challenge that application of this law to a president would garner (since qualifications are set in Constitution),” he wrote. “But the idea that a candidate would have to litigate this is during a campaign is in my view a ‘blockbuster in American politics.’”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The likelihood is that romperisto swiped documents that are so sensitive to national security --

This is the line the experts in this kind of law and law enforcement have been taking this morning.  Of course, who cares a whit what the experts say.  It's the gut that rules.  This includes speculation as to the likelihood that romperisto is / has been trying to sell them to highest bidders. This speculation would, of course, answer my own ongoing question ever since learning of the thievery -- why is he KEEPING these documents, not destroying them, if they likely reflect so badly on his own illegal and treasonous behaviors?

 

Trump would sell his own poop if he thought he could make a buck from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

Trump would sell his own poop if he thought he could make a buck from it. 

I mean, so would I.  Who wouldn't?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Secret Service facilitated access to the Florida Trump property as fellow federal agents but did not take part in investigation or search" means the reichlicans will have to defund the SS along with defunding the FBI and everything else They are screaming They will defund after the midterms.  In the meantime quite a few SS officers lately have been proven they, at least, should not only be defunded, but put on trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always hilarious to see the party of "law and order" turning on law enforcement. They want to give them billions when they think they're going to be used to control minorities and political opponents. Now after Trump's resort was raided, now they want to defund and abolish the FBI. 

Ha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

But not his urine. He has special uses for that.

Well, no.  He doesn't have special uses for his urine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...