Jump to content

US Politics: Hey wanna come to my office and see some Top Secret Eyes only documents?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

So of the above 11, only 3 definitely suffered any real career impact and all of them were people who cooperated. The 7 people who stayed loyal to Trump don't appear to have suffered anything major save perhaps Manafort, and Manafort got cut early. It's clearly not a particular problem to commit crimes for Trump provided that you don't act a snitch. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

And my argument was they've faced consequences that would obviously be meaningful to a federal judge and presumably a special master.  Try to keep up!

I disagree. The consequences that they would face are not applicable to a judge. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's only 8 times because the judges almost always resign beforehand.  My point was her career as a judge would be ruined.  Obviously she could parlay it to a pundit career like Roger Stone, but as I said three posts ago, I highly doubt this 41 year old federal judge wants to emulate Roger Stone. 

And again, I disagree. I don't know why they would resign. There really haven't been this kind of precedent for a politically motivated corruption before. All the previous ones were clearly self-interested criminal enterprises ranging from specific bribery to actual illegal sex acts. This ain't that. I don't see why a judge who sticks up for Trump and Trumpy viewpoints would be ruined as a judge. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

First of all, yes, I don't think DeSantis would nominate her.  Indeed I'm fairly confident of that.  Second of all, doesn't really matter if the president will nominate her or not, it's whether the Senate will confirm her.  And you betcha as long as McConnell is around he's not gonna be down with that.  Third, and most importantly, it's INCREDIBLY STUPID to think Cannon would be relying on all this happening hypothetically in the future as reassurance to risk her career be engaging in a criminal conspiracy to help Trump right now.  Indeed, it's the essence of magical thinking.

Try and play along with me here: Trump gets benefit from Cannon. He then pays her back by nominating her to appellate or something higher. Trump slams ANYONE who would deny her. Think those senators aren't going to play ball? McConnell is certainly going to - he already has nominated and voted in several people (including, ironically, Cannon) who were incompetent and inexperienced. 

You're prescribing significant more care about things like political appearances to McConnell and the rest of the Senate than they've shown in the last 10 years. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Wow.  The depths of your stupidity and lying know no bounds. 

Let's not with the fucking personal attacks, okay? 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Are you applying for a job with Trump or something?  I explicitly said political self-interest WAS the issue - twice.  You're the one with the fantastical infantile thinking that it somehow would be in Cannon's political self-interest to engage in a criminal conspiracy.  You're equating her with literally his political henchmen when she's a (very young) federal judge.  It's an absurd comparison.

Please name a federal judge that's been convicted of a federal crime and even still remained in office.  In other words, you have absolutely no evidence for your assumptions.

This is exactly my point. You're looking for prior comparisons of judges who acting in a political way in an environment that looks nothing like what we have now. If this were the 1970s I'd agree with you, it'd be suicide. But it's not then, it's now, and doing entirely shady political things like giving tours of militia groups to the capitol building or pointing out where the offices of your congressional opposition are to the enemy are totally fine. You think a little conspiracy to help Trump is going to matter? 

I mean, seriously, this even assumes that the House is going to vote to impeach, which almost certainly won't happen in the timeframe we're talking about. But even if that were the case - you think that a person in this environment is going to be ruined by this? Look at what happened with Kavanaugh!

But let's even go through things here. The amount of damage that Cannon can do without actually breaking the law is incredibly high! She can (and already has) coordinated with Trump's incredibly inept legal team to get him the win that they want AND somehow, weirdly, be able to expand the rights of executive privilege to a person who is not currently the executive in a way that will only ever help Trump or Trump-like people. She can nominate a special master who can entirely impede the investigation or even decide that all of it is property of Trump and was illegally seized; heck, I suspect she could even have herself as the special master. All of that is entirely legal! Now, she can go even further than that if she wants to and start ruling that all of this is out of bounds and against the law and the FBI has no right to do this based on absolutely nothing at all, but even that isn't illegal - just profoundly unethical. 

But she'd have to actually take a bribe, or take a promise of a promotion, or somehow show that there was a specific exchange of value to be actually illegal. I think that could happen, but I also think it won't be remotely provable in a court of law; by comparison, the cases before for things like bribery or corruption took investigators 5+ years to find anything. She can just know what Trump wants done - much like Cohen - and do it of her own incompetence. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I disagree. The consequences that they would face are not applicable to a judge. 

That's great you disagree.  You're wrong.  And even recent history demonstrates you're entirely wrong.

4 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Try and play along with me here:

No.  Because this is all predicated on Trump winning reelection.  Which, regardless of his legal troubles, is at best a 50/50 shot - and almost certainly less than that considering Dems' electoral prospects improving coincided with him bringing his horrific favorability ratings back to front and center of the national conversation.  Would you risk your career and criminal prosecution based on a 50/50 shot it would pay off in two years?  If so, again, go ahead with that Trump application.

10 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You're prescribing significant more care about things like political appearances to McConnell and the rest of the Senate than they've shown in the last 10 years. 

LOL, nope, I'm anticipating McConnell will behave exactly like he always has.  Now, there's an argument to be made that Trump will successfully oust him if he is elected in 2024...but if he doesn't McConnell is most certainly not gonna acquiesce to Trump's brazenly corrupt nominees.  Hell, he balked at most of those during Trump's first term.  That's why he had so many "acting" members of his Cabinet.  And that's before they became public political enemies wherein McConnell has absolutely no reason to kowtow to Trump's indulgences.

9 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Let's not with the fucking personal attacks, okay? 

Then stop lying or extraordinarily and repeatedly "misunderstanding" what I post.  Like this:

13 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I mean, seriously, this even assumes that the House is going to vote to impeach, which almost certainly won't happen in the timeframe we're talking about.

You keep on arguing the impeachment point when not only did I never mention it to begin with, but then when you mentioned it I explicitly said that wasn't what I was talking about.  Your inability to grasp the arguments I repeatedly state in response to you make it hard to think this isn't just trolling at this point.  Indeed, the charitable interpretation is that you're trolling instead of inexplicably unable to understand basic arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Squab said:

Oil production in the US is still behind 2020 levels (the year of the CCP endorsed lockdowns) and almost 10% behind 2019. This is even worse when you consider that under Trump oil production was increasing by more than 10% each year.

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/

Citation needed.  I'm seeing a pretty clear increase in production since it "bottomed out" in 2020.  Using the methodology McBigski was using up thread, wherein one bizarrely attributes the gas production and pricing to the whims of the executive as if we had nationalized petroleum, it seems that Trump caused production to bottom out, and it's been steadily increasing ever since.  

Obviously, there is an abundance of faults with the idea that the president has his finger on some magic gas price button.  Which should be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of the modern US economy and political structure.  

Interestingly enough, some intelligent people might even look at the popularly named IRA bill and say that it was a handout to the oil and gas companies and opens up millions of acres of public lands and oceans to drilling.  The gas companies are pretty excited about it.

Who had the Senate and the Presidency when the lockdowns when into effect again?  I forget .

Eta:.

And by the way if we're talking oil and gas exports instead of production i'd really like to see some data because this is what im seeing: more exports in 2021 than 2019. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191320/total-us-petroleum-exports/

 

Edited by Larry of the Lake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's great you disagree.  You're wrong.  And even recent history demonstrates you're entirely wrong.

How so? What political crimes have judges committed that forced them to resign? The last one I see was a judge being kicked out during the Civil War. 

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  Because this is all predicated on Trump winning reelection.  Which, regardless of his legal troubles, is at best a 50/50 shot - and almost certainly less than that considering Dems' electoral prospects improving coincided with him bringing his horrific favorability ratings back to front and center of the national conversation.  Would you risk your career and criminal prosecution based on a 50/50 shot it would pay off in two years?  If so, again, go ahead with that Trump application. 

It's not just a Trump winning election - it's any Republican for the next 10-20 years. 

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, nope, I'm anticipating McConnell will behave exactly like he always has.  Now, there's an argument to be made that Trump will successfully oust him if he is elected in 2024...but if he doesn't McConnell is most certainly not gonna acquiesce to Trump's brazenly corrupt nominees.  Hell, he balked at most of those during Trump's first term. 

The hell he did! IIRC all of two nominees didn't make it past McConnell, and both of them were not particularly corrupt - they were just absurdly incompetent. Here ya go - of the nominations only two - who were rated 'not qualified' - didn't make it. The other 7 who were rated that way made it. McConnell certainly didn't balk at most of them, at least not in any measurable way that mattered. 

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's why he had so many "acting" members of his Cabinet.  And that's before they became public political enemies wherein McConnell has absolutely no reason to kowtow to Trump's indulgences. 

I don't see how that works at all. McConnell will keep doing what Trump wants provided McConnell gets what he wants. If Trump wants a judge, he'll almost certainly get it. McConnell could have solved this by indicting Trump back in 2021; he certainly didn't do that. 

The fact is that McConnell understands all too well that the Republican party is the Trump party, and going against Trump in any real active way is going to harm the Republican party. He's not going to deny a judge that saved Trump's ass because that would imply that that judge did something wrong. That's the reason to indulge Trump - because indulging Trump is making the Republican party stronger.

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Then stop lying or extraordinarily and repeatedly "misunderstanding" what I post.  Like this:

You keep on arguing the impeachment point when not only did I never mention it to begin with, but then when you mentioned it I explicitly said that wasn't what I was talking about. 

If you're not talking impeachment what other threat is there to a judge's career? That is literally the only way to remove a judge outside of death. Is your implication that they wouldn't advance? Then I disagree with that as pointed out above; I don't see any end to Trump's cronyism. Are you saying that they'd resign? The only reason judges have resigned in the past was to avoid being indicted as part of an impeachment. They can be charged and even have a crime on their record but that doesn't remove them automatically. 

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Your inability to grasp the arguments I repeatedly state in response to you make it hard to think this isn't just trolling at this point.  Indeed, the charitable interpretation is that you're trolling instead of inexplicably unable to understand basic arguments.

Perhaps there's another issue, which is that you're making a particularly poorly reasoned argument that assumes the career of a Trump-appointed judge who sides heavily with Trump would somehow be in jeopardy without actually specifying how that career would be in jeopardy or who would put it in jeopardy.

So try again, please: make that basic argument that indicates why a judge who commits crimes for Trump should be worried about that being a career-limiting move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

"Like"s got nothing on "love", amigo

I'm not your amigo, kumpel. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

How so? What political crimes have judges committed that forced them to resign? The last one I see was a judge being kicked out during the Civil War. 

I don't know what "political crimes" really means.  What you're suggesting is Cannon committing a crime - which I think someone so concerned about the "rule of law" as you originally posted this afternoon would be concerned about.  Abe Fortas' obvious association with LBJ is part and parcel why he had to resign, if you want an example, but again "political crimes" is a very pliable definition.

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

It's not just a Trump winning election - it's any Republican for the next 10-20 years. 

Er..what?  No, it really really isn't.  If a Dem wins in 2024, her career is almost certainly over and at the least stagnated.  Same goes if the Dems hold the Senate even if a Republican wins in 2024.  Again, the probabilities make absolutely zero rational sense.  Is it possible Cannon just doesn't care and wants to be the next Judge Pirro on FNC?  Possibly!  But you have absolutely no reason to assume that.

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

The hell he did! IIRC all of two nominees didn't make it past McConnell, and both of them were not particularly corrupt - they were just absurdly incompetent. Here ya go - of the nominations only two - who were rated 'not qualified' - didn't make it. The other 7 who were rated that way made it. McConnell certainly didn't balk at most of them, at least not in any measurable way that mattered. 

Yikes.  Some poly sci 101:  McConnell was the floor leader during Trump's presidency.  Which means Trump wouldn't have even bothered nominating any federal judiciary nominees that McConnell objected to because he knew they would never get a floor vote (and almost certainly not even got out of committee).  And, correspondingly, like I said that's why he correspondingly didn't nominate replacements for Cabinet positions because he knew they'd never get a floor vote either - and thus appointing them as "acting" heads as long as legally possible.

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

McConnell could have solved this by indicting Trump back in 2021; he certainly didn't do that. 

McConnell has no power to indict Trump.  Could he have voted to convict on Trump's second impeachment?  Sure, and he obviously wanted to.  But he chose power over "ethics," as you say, and knew even if he did vote to convict it wouldn't have turned the tide and almost certainly would result in him losing his position.  So he stayed the course and literally ever since has tried to steer the GOP away from Trump in any way possible. 

Granted, he's lost for the most part in the aggregate, but that doesn't change the fact he's still their leader and is entirely bereft of any worries about being beholden to Trump now.  The fucker spends as much time attacking him as he does Biden and the Dems these days.  Like, seriously, are you even paying attention to what's going on?  

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Is your implication that they wouldn't advance?

It's not an implication, it's what I explicitly said, twice.

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Are you saying that they'd resign? The only reason judges have resigned in the past was to avoid being indicted as part of an impeachment. They can be charged and even have a crime on their record but that doesn't remove them automatically. 

Again, please cite a federal judge that's been convicted of a federal crime and stayed in office.  I honestly don't know for sure - there may be one out there! - but until then you have zero evidence for your argument.  When judges are convicted of serious crimes, they resign.  And this isn't some "old outdated norm" or whatever, it's still observed.  And you can bet plenty of even Trump appointed justices agree with this norm.  Particularly the Judicial Conference which is responsible for recommending disciplinary actions against judges - even though, yes, their authority is ultimately toothless.

40 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Perhaps there's another issue, which is that you're making a particularly poorly reasoned argument that assumes the career of a Trump-appointed judge who sides heavily with Trump would somehow be in jeopardy without actually specifying how that career would be in jeopardy or who would put it in jeopardy.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::rofl::rofl::rofl:

If the very real potential loss of her judicial career, not to mention being investigated by the DOJ for criminal prosecution - all in exchange for not only an at best flip-of-a-coin bet on Trump winning in 2024 but also him holding up his end of the bargain (which is incredibly naive all on its own) - is a poorly reasoned argument to you then...you do you Trumpist.  Carry on!  But don't act like it hasn't been specified repeatedly.  Your argument is just abjectly pathetic.

Edited by DMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you guys bitch about DMC and I disagreeing...

At least we like one another. :P

Every Bert needs his Ernie.  And you two are adorable. :wub:

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Every Bert needs his Ernie.  And you two are adorable. :wub:

You need to pick up them sticks because we're fighting...in Mortal Kombat, from the early 2000's! With the real fight anthem being played on a loop:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case, to cut this off at the head, to be clear I like virtually everybody reading this - certainly including both Kal and Ty.  I absolutely would not bother otherwise.  I also was "raised," in the sense of living in DC from ages 18 to 22, by vehemently arguing with friends about politics to the extent it would sometimes make others uncomfortable.  (And that involved much more rancor than anything that's gone on in these threads.  Two of my closest friends were hardcore Republicans right after Dubya invaded Iraq.  That felt like just as much of existential circumstances as what we're experiencing now at the time, as crazy as it sounds.) 

This is also how I've engaged on internet forums for pretty much a quarter century now, since I was in middle school.  I understand it's not for everybody (and also can often can conflict with this site's "rules") and I try to accommodate that, but based on past experience I at least have pretty good reason to think Kal and Ty are the types like me that can have such an "argument" one night and have an amicable discussion the next day.  I do get that it sucks for the rest of you, but when the escalation starts obviously I just can't help myself... 

I very much appreciate these threads and especially appreciate posters like @Fez and @Maithanet that are insanely well-informed for a random internet forum about a fantasy series involving tits and dragons.  The level of political discourse in GenChat is generally very impressive.  Just want to reiterate that I like pretty much literally everyone that routinely posts on these threads (even McBigDrunk, who really reminds me of one of my aforementioned Republican DC friends) - particularly those "below the wall" or whatever the vernacular is.  As for love..well, that's a strong word that I have hangups about, but that's a me thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You need to pick up them sticks because we're fighting...in Mortal Kombat, from the early 2000's! With the real fight anthem being played on a loop:

 

Don't drag me into your tub. I am not your rubber duckie.  

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palins idiocy (or Begich's stubbornness) might cost the R's Alaska congressional seat.  If the R's shoot themselves in the foot even once or twice more, they might fail to gain both the senate and the house. 

Palin calls for Begich to drop out of the congressional race but deadline arrives and neither budge (msn.com)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I forgot to reply to the question as to what I meant by "running out the clock." I mean that they're kicking the can down the road for as long as possible, hoping to make it to (or at least reduce the time between a final verdict and) the next election and a Republican government, which, 45 or any other, would remove the current DOJ and, in case he'd been convicted and the SCOTUS upheld the verdict (extremely unlikely) pardon him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

I once spent multiple days arguing about the page count of WoT books in order to force that person to look up something on the internet.

I think I'll be okay with a bit of discourse around politics

I never was clear on that...did Jordan sell out or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...