General US Politics

[Shoblongoo]

5 minutes ago, dragonlordsd said:

I agree with you. Ryan's just tired, and honestly, who wouldn't be?

Sure, maybe his district gets flipped, but people predicting a Democratic house or senate are way, way too optimistic. Sure, Alabama and Virginia flipped, but those both had extenuating circumstances. Democrats are on a major defensive in the midterms, and it's going to take a lot to get a majority.

Honestly, though, they need it. No one party should hold all three branches, ever, I don't care which side you support.

Democratic House I'll predict.

Democratic Senate--not so much.

The Senate is structured in a way where its membership is implicitly skewed towards over representation of sparsely populated rural states with low urban population centers. Even at the best of times, that's a tough nut for any leftward leaning political party crack.     

[Interdimensional Observer]

4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

The Senate is structured in a way where its membership is implicitly skewed towards over representation of sparsely populated rural states with low urban population centers. Even at the best of times, that's a tough nut for any leftward leaning political party crack.     

And if I remember my Andrew Johnson impeachment right, they're the ones who make the crucial vote. So there goes that opportunity unless the Senate has enough conscientious Republicans- just enough realized back in the AJ case that it would be a legislative overreach to throw out a president just because you dislike his politics (and here there is so much more).

[Shoblongoo]

7 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

And if I remember my Andrew Johnson impeachment right, they're the ones who make the crucial vote. So there goes that opportunity unless the Senate has enough conscientious Republicans- just enough realized back in the AJ case that it would be a legislative overreach to throw out a president just because you dislike his politics (and here there is so much more).

Lets assume that the Senate Republicans act purely on political expediency, and that it doesn't matter what the right thing to do is. They will impeach if they're looking at the polls, and they feel pressured to impeach by their voters. 

This graphic is instructive:




Right now you have Trump hovering at around 40%. Which is less support than Nixon had at a comparable phase of the Watergate investigation. (i.e. under investigation by a special prosecutor, denying everything, and purporting to cooperate fully with the investigation while simultaneously dismissing the investigation as a witch hunt)

Nixon drops down in to the 20s when he fires the special prosecutor, purges his justice department, and refuses to answer congressional subpoenas. And thats when even his Republican allies in Congress cannot escape the pressure to impeach.

If Trump fires Mueller. Or if there are more indictments and more persons in Trump's inner circle charged with conspiracy against the United States, and the president himself is continuing to obstruct and deny the legitimacy of the investigation. And if the Democrats take over the House in November + start issuing subpoenas that Trump refuses to answer.  

If at that point Trump is still hovering around 40%--it is what it is--we're stuck with the Schmuck, and we deserve it. 

If at that point Trump's numbers dive the way Nixon's numbers dive after he fired Archibald Cox. That's when you're going to see even staunch Republican lawmakers publicly calling for impeachment. 

[Phoenix Wright]

On 4/10/2018 at 6:37 AM, Life said:

Eh, I'm more worried about what the USA is considering regarding Syria.

There are lots of reasons why I don't want a military strike in Syria but first and foremost has to do with the fact that anything that grants Bibi positive press is not good. I'm waiting for the corruption indictments (and I will celebrate when the AG announces them) and a war is going to rock that boat.

That being said, Bibi isn't the most dangerous MK in this country (that award goes to Ayelet Shaked). So who knows?

EDIT: As an aside, it is important to note that if any single document from the FBI's raid gets leaked to the media, Mueller can be criminally prosecuted for using the FBI to violate the 4th Amendment of a private citizen (Cohen). Mueller had BETTER have something relating to collusion with Russia or he could potentially go to jail himself.

 

 

the us has already launched missile attacks in syria. what trump is doing is dangerous. i won't deny this is incredibly complicated, though, and i'm deeply worried that trump and putin are the leaders we have to work with here...

that aside is silly. intent isn't easy to prove. plus, mueller had nothing to do with the fbi raid lol. read below...

23 hours ago, dragonlordsd said:

Interesting Addendum:

The raid was not carried out by Mueller or his team directly, but was instead carried out by Geoffery Berhman, US Attorney for the District of New York, a Trump appointee.

Two things can be inferred from this:

1. It will be difficult to go after Mueller in regards to this matter, as it was not carried out by his office. Even if Trump wants to fire Mueller, he does have to give  a written explanation for why, and there are only 5 or so reasons that can be used.

2. Berhman apparently didn't inform Trump of what he was doing, and appears to be cooperating with Mueller. This is yet another person who has sided with Mueller against expectations. What does he know that we don't?

mueller didn't investigate likely because the crimes he found evidence of do not have anything to do with the russia investigation. staying within his assignment, he sent it to the ny federal attorneys. 

22 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'm hearing that the matter was delegated down to the NY District Attorney by Mueller, but that the investigation into Cohen originated with the special prosecutor's office and that the authorization for the raid came directly from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein (i.e. the top Justice Department official who appointed Mueller after Sessions recused himself, and who is overseeing the Mueller team)

...now to the extent Mueller's mandate to investigate includes all crimes arising out of the 2016 election.

...and to the extent Cohen is now under investigation for violating campaign finance laws in his payment to Stormy Daniels, and allegedly coercing her to accept the payments + sign a nondisclosure agreement with death threats (i.e. crimes arising out of the 2016 election)

The fact that Mueller is delegating that down to the NY District Attorney instead of tending to it himself tells me Mueller has bigger fish to fry. His team would be personally prosecuting Cohen, if they didn't have anything better to do.

They aren't.

Which means they're focusing hard on the bigger investigation into obstruction of justice and money laundering through the Russians and conspiracy against the United States; that investigation is still, very, very active and Mueller believes there's still more legwork that needs to go into bringing all the loose threads together.
____________

Word out is that Mueller is expecting to have a report of his findings prepared for public presentation by July.

And that the push to prosecute or pardon the persons identified therein as criminal actors--whether by coincidence, or by design--is going to coincide with peak campaigning season for the 2018 midterms.    

as above: mueller forwent his investigation into cohen-trump crimes because it's not within his assigned investigation. so i don't think that's a valid conclusion to draw.

see ny times daily (tues 10 april) for more info. i suppose the explanation is at best a guess, but makes more sense than any other explanation.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Phoenix Wright

[Shoblongoo]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the us has already launched missile attacks in syria. what trump is doing is dangerous. i won't deny this is incredibly complicated, though, and i'm deeply worried that trump and putin are the leaders we have to work with here...

The overriding dynamic here is that this is Cold War 2.0; America vs. Russia by proxy through their respective posturing in the internal conflict of an intermediary state, without actually fielding their armies against each other or starting the World War that direct America vs. Russia fighting would entail.

United States has said: "Assad is a war criminal and has crossed the line and is not the legitimate ruler of Syria. He has to go. We support the rebels working to overthrow his regime."

Russia has said: "We support Assad as the legitimate ruler of Syria and condemn the violence against his government. We are committed to helping Assad restore law-and-order."

If the ultimate outcome of the Syrian Civil War is that Assad remains in power. While rebel-sympathizing towns get annihilated by his Russian backed army, and America doesn't really contribute anything beyond words and speeches and a token show of power with the occasional random fuck-off missile strike.

The message that sends to every country in the world is: Pick your allies carefully. That PUTIN, man. He's the guy you want to be your friend; if Putin has your back when shit is going down, you're gonna make it. America ain't shit."

That's not a message that's going to be missed.

And I'm no apologist for Obama; I've had some colorful things to say over the years about how he bungled the situation and left a rather untenable mess for his successor (#RomneyWasRightAboutEverything). But Trump--with his Russian entanglements and treatment of the Presidency as his own personal Reality TV show--is literally the worst person in the World we could have at the helm on this one.
 

14 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

as above: mueller forwent his investigation into cohen-trump crimes because it's not within his assigned investigation

Upon review of the Authorization Letter from Deputy AG Rosentein setting forth the scope of Mueller's investigative power--you are correct.

I incorrectly stated that Mueller was authorized to investigate all crimes related to the 2016 election. That is not the precise language used. The language used is:

 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

"Any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"

AND

"Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." 

While the special counsel does in fact have broad authority to investigate crime unrelated to Russian collusion that occurred during (or outside) the 2016 election, it isn't ALL crimes.

The qualifier is: Only crimes that were discovered in the course of the underlying investigation. 

The crime for which Cohen is being investigated because Cohen himself went on national television and made incriminating statements about paying Ms. Daniels off with his own money and without the President's knowledge, not because it arose directly from the investigation.

Therefore it was not a crime that Mueller was authorized to investigate and he had no choice but to refer the matter to the District Attorney.

------

I stand correctly and retract my previous post.

[Slumber]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HANNITY IS COHEN'S THIRD CLIENT

OH MY GOD

EVERYTHING SUDDENLY MAKES SO MUCH SENSE

At this point I am going to assume everyone who still supports this administration has some personal stake in it.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Slumber

[Shoblongoo]

18 minutes ago, Slumber said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANNITY IS COHEN'S THIRD CLIENT

OH MY GOD

EVERYTHING SUDDENLY MAKES SO MUCH SENSE

...well color me pink...

 

 

...it's almost like the legal defense team and the nightly attacks on the special prosecutor have been working together...

Is that obstruction of justice? That sure smells like obstruction of justice.

Ohhhhhhh that would just be the cherry on the cake if Hannity went down in all of this too.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Slumber]

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

...well color me pink...

  Hide contents

 

...it's almost like the legal defense team and the nightly attacks on the special prosecutor have been working together...

Is that obstruction of justice? That sure smells like obstruction of justice.

Ohhhhhhh that would just be the cherry on the cake if Hannity went down in all of this too.

I'd say that Hannity's credibility is completely gone over this, and nobody should listen to him... but this was true yesterday, before this came out, and people still didn't seem to care.

[eclipse]

9 hours ago, Slumber said:

I'd say that Hannity's credibility is completely gone over this, and nobody should listen to him... but this was true yesterday, before this came out, and people still didn't seem to care.

If Fox News still has viewers, then people are going to listen to Hannity.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Plenty of their audience will just utter "FAKE NEWS" before even stopping to think and consider if they've been lied to.

If this piece is true, it needs more attention and push on Fox News to fire Hannity

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

Yeah. If you were deep enough in the weeds to think that Hannity was a credible source in the first place, this doesn't move the needle; it only reinforces your belief that the "Deep State" is out to get conservatives. 

...I do wonder though...

Hannity has general counsel representing him; whatever he approached Cohen for was something he wanted done quietly and discreetly, and handled separately from the rest of his legal matters. 

Moreover, to the extent Hannity's statements that he never retained Cohen as counsel and only briefly spoke to him about real estate contradicts directly with what was submitted on the record in Court proceedings, Hannity appears to be lying about the nature of his relationship with Cohen and what matters Cohen represented him on.

Finally, Cohen's professional representation as an attorney was that he was "the fixer" for high-profile men caught up in extramartial affairs.  He was the guy you went to when you needed to draft a nondisclosure agreement, arrange a transfer of hush money to the mistress, and conceal the transaction from your family.

Kinda makes me think there's more to this story that hasn't dropped yet.


  

Edited April 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

42 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeah. If you were deep enough in the weeds to think that Hannity was a credible source in the first place, this doesn't move the needle; it only reinforces your belief that the "Deep State" is out to get conservatives. 

It's actually quite interesting to me considering how much of the "deep state" is out and out admitted Republicans or Conservatives.

The other interesting part is how claiming to be "anti-establishment" would have resulted in you being derided as a left-wing lunatic hippie in the 70s by the same people who call themselves that now.

[Sias]

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Kinda makes me think there's more to this story that hasn't dropped yet.
 

Well, of course Hannity is lying about his relations to Cohen, just like Trump did before. It's probably just a matter of time before we find out what exactly happened, though I'm not sure to what extent there will be any consequences for him. His followers will just deride every evidence as conspiracy, so...

Also, on another rather interesting note, Ted Cruz is apparently only leading the fight for his senate seat by a meager 3%. Sad!

[Shoblongoo]

Lolololol anyone else watch the White House Correspondent's Dinner? Gotta get a link to Michelle Wolf's roast in here. She killed it.

[Shoblongoo]

Found it. WARNING: NSFW https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8IYPnnsYJw

[Lord Raven]

My family called me and told me to watch that. Based on this year and last year this one's going to be straight fire; Michelle Wolf is incredible.

I'll edit this when I finish.

 

EDIT: the crowd is NOT loving this. This is amazing. It reminds me of Larry Willmore a few years back.

EDIT: it was amazing. One of the best I've seen, and I love just how blunt it is. There's no doubt in my mind that what she prepared to give was not congruent with what they requested from her, specifically because I remember Lewis Black hating his WHCD for how much they wanted to restrict him.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Slumber]

31 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

My family called me and told me to watch that. Based on this year and last year this one's going to be straight fire; Michelle Wolf is incredible.

I'll edit this when I finish.

 

EDIT: the crowd is NOT loving this. This is amazing. It reminds me of Larry Willmore a few years back.

The Larry Willmore one was a bit different. That one was more awkward simply because I don't think people knew how to react to somebody doing black comedy at the president, cut in with some biting critical commentary. It was more of a bunch of people kind of shifting in their seats and not knowing when it's appropriate to laugh.

This one is people getting visibly upset that they're not being fellated with every sentence like they expected, and somebody's actually calling them out on their bullshit to their face and going "Well what the hell did you expect?". She goes after both sides, but the right is getting so butthurt over this.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Slumber

[Lord Raven]

Larry Willmore was great because he was pretty much going in on a lot of the media that was present. Wolf definitely did it much better, but Willmore did not make members of the media happy at all.

[Johann]

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Found it. WARNING: NSFW https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8IYPnnsYJw

Hot fire, I loved it

[Phoenix Wright]

oh god, that shot of kellyanne conway

[Shoblongoo]

...lots of pissed off Trump supporters on The Hill and POLITICO getting butt-bothered over that set...

Being particularly pissy about the jabs at Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

[Tryhard]

to play devil's advocate, it's also fair to criticise those trump-haters who would mock trump's appearance but would be aghast at his numerous verbal assaults on people - frankly there's a lot more important things on a strictly policy level rather than sinking to trump-level

still, from what i understand the whole light roasting thing is a tradition and can be safely ignored even if you heavily disagree

and well, if you want the best and funniest cognitive dissonance I saw. i hope for a troll since it's youtube comments, and it seems like it's trying a little too hard, but you never know

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Tryhard

[ping]

55 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

to play devil's advocate, it's also fair to criticise those trump-haters who would mock trump's appearance but would be aghast at his numerous verbal assaults on people - frankly there's a lot more important things on a strictly policy level rather than sinking to trump-level

There's always the punching up vs. kicking down argument to make here, although I do agree that jokes on appearances in political comedy are dumb. Trump is a horrible president, but him being less handsome than Obama is not one of the reasons for that.

[Excellen Browning]

Donald Trump is so broke

[SuperIb]

Ooof Michelle Wolf's roast was spicy hot. That was so great to watch haha. I do find the upset over it really funny to watch as well, especially Trump's tweets.