|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 14 2017 10:37 LuckyFool wrote:
In Virginia you have the option to choose to vote in whichever primary when you show up, but none of the options on either side were appealing to me. When the guy at the precinct asked me if I was voting Democrat or Republican, I was tempted to say neither and just walk out.
Guess I'm glad Northam is coming out on the Dem side, I suppose all hope has not been lost, yet. Our options in the 2013 race on both sides seemed much stronger.
seems odd to have a shortage of good options; at least at the state-wide level you should be drawing from a large enough pool of people that to have no appealing options means the process of selecting those options is lacking. yet more parts of the system to fix I suppose.
|
|
|
I think the big news here is "the executive's top lawyer decided to lawyer up." I suppose people were hoping for perjury or something.
|
On June 14 2017 11:45 LegalLord wrote:
I think the big news here is "the executive's top lawyer decided to lawyer up." I suppose people were hoping for perjury or something.
More like answering the questions given to him.
|
On June 14 2017 11:49 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 11:45 LegalLord wrote:
I think the big news here is "the executive's top lawyer decided to lawyer up." I suppose people were hoping for perjury or something. More like answering the questions given to him.
I mean, yeah, I suppose if he were inclined to cooperate that would matter. It makes you sort of scummy when you take that route, but we already knew that about Sessions. As it stands, I'd lawyer up in his position too - less liability down the road.
|
Sessions did an extremely poor job in 2 regards:
1) He did nothing to protect Trump. He would not declare that Trump didn't fire Comey for the Russian investigation.
I also find it EXTREMELY telling that he never once talked to Comey in any regards about his performance before suggesting he be fired. At the absolute best, that is crazy, crazy unprofessional. More like absolute negligence.
2) He's just lying about the Mayflower. His "testimony" on this was written-testimony, given under heavy scrutiny after having previously misstated. He had to have known, at that point, that Kislyak was at that event, even if he doesn't "personally remember". His explanation for continually neglecting this event just does - not - make - sense.
This Mayflower event was a big first step in Trump's campaign.
Anyone who has seen or heard Kislyak, remembers him. He is a 350 lb man-pig. Kind of hard to forget. Kislyak was on stage with only a few other people at one point, one of whom was Sessions...
So, no surprise, he's going for all plausible deniability, but he has lied and, imo, continues to lie about this event.
edit: to be honest, I actually doubt Sessions is guilty of much beyond cover-up. I believe his indignation over being personally involved in collusion or anything that malicious... But of lying to cover-up, obstruction and perjury, he seems guilty.
If we want to nail someone in a Congressional hearing who probably is guilty of extreme wrong-doing, get Kushner behind that table and have him explain that Russian embassy "back channel".
|
Destined for success.
Congressional sources say President Donald Trump has told Republican senators that the House health care bill is "mean" and that the Senate version should be "more generous."
The remarks were a surprising critique of a Republican-written House measure whose passage Trump fought for and embraced. They also seem to undercut efforts by Senate conservatives to impose restrictions in their chamber's legislation, such as curbing the Medicaid health care program for the poor and limiting the services insurers must cover.
www.cnbc.com
|
On June 14 2017 10:22 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 10:17 Plansix wrote:On June 14 2017 10:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
to be fair Russia is in the headlines at the moment. and the Senate Health care bill hasn't been proposed and there's no information on it. Dems could do a better job of focusing on bills they have or are trying to submit (like the drug reduction bill) but since those bills are obviously going nowhere kind of hard to make news about it.
They have no power to grab headlines or do anything at this point. People want them to oppose Trumpcare tooth and nail, but there isn't much they can do except complain about it. That thing needs a CBO score and a pending vote. Then it will be the center of attention. I thought it had a new CBO score. It's just totally DOA in the senate, so no one is really paying attention to it anymore
Rumor around the internet is they're really close actually. Josh Marshall seems certain they're gonna make it public right after the CBO score and then rush a vote before anybody can look at it. Which, you know, makes it pretty obvious they know it's a piece of shit, but they might also think they're better off politically with a bad bill than no bill at all. And on that particular calculation I'm not sure they're wrong.
I stand to be hurt by this bill quite a bit, and I'm about as scared of it as I've been since they started trying to pass something.
|
Senate making their own bill. we have 0 idea what it looks like. It that passes they need to try to reconcile the two bills then vote on them again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even all these years later we just can't quite shake off those goddamn MidEast commitments from Bush...
|
On June 14 2017 13:41 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:it begins + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/PoliticoKevin/status/874833067025870849
Looks like trying to run as Trump-lite creates strife when you actually lose. Wonder if he's going to babble about fake/rigged votes or something or just overall be a pain in the ass (can't see past the WaPo paywall). Maybe just try to waste the state's time and money like McCrory tried to do in North Carolina.
|
On June 14 2017 08:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 07:33 Introvert wrote:
I'm surprised people expected Sessions to give the witch hunters ammo.
I didn't get to watch, but from everything I'm seeing, Kamala Harris is everything I want from a CA senator: an ass and an idiot. She's so perfect for this state. And to think that I thought Loretta Sanchez could have been an bigger embarrassment! How foolish I was. You are in luck, CA loves her and I'm sure the Republican leadership will keep hushing and interrupting her every time they get a chance.
I'm sure they will, because I'm sure she'll keep interrupting testimony searching for campaign clips.
|
On June 14 2017 13:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Looks like trying to run as Trump-lite creates strife when you actually lose. Wonder if he's going to babble about fake/rigged votes or something or just overall be a pain in the ass (can't see past the WaPo paywall). Maybe just try to waste the state's time and money like McCrory tried to do in North Carolina.
well it can't be worse than the Franken 08 debacle.
|
Applauding him when he threw that big ass bomb on Syria was not a good idea. I wonder what he's going to throw in which direction if this whole Russia thing escalates, I better get a helmet
edit : yes, wrong quote
|
nvm you fixed it. but yeah I'm sure letting the pentagon do whatever they want is a great idea.
|
|
|
Yeah, this will end well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
