US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7895

On June 19 2017 16:55 Falling wrote:
Fair enough. I responded because I know I was heavily involved (perhaps even the most involved) in the conversation you were referring to.

Their appeals, however fervent, are working against a historical headwind. Democratic and Republican voters don’t just disagree about the right way to reform health care or the true intentions of President Trump. Many despise each other, and to a degree that political scientists and pollsters say has gotten significantly worse over the last 50 years.

“If you go back to the days of the Civil War, one can find cases in American political history where there was far more rancor and violence,” said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford political scientist. “But in the modern era, there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ — partisan animus is at an all-time high.”

Mr. Iyengar doesn’t mean that the typical Democratic or Republican voter has adopted more extreme ideological views (although it is the case that elected officials in Congress have moved further apart). Rather, Democrats and Republicans truly think worse of each other, a trend that isn’t really about policy preferences. Members of the two parties are more likely today to describe each other unfavorably, as selfish, as threats to the nation, even as unsuitable marriage material.

These things arenèt in opposition. Itès very possible see and discuss both: overzealous college kids targetting the wrong thing while decrying the number of black people shot by police in the US. The reality is I am doing exactly nothing about either of these two things. Ièm not in your country, but I am discussing it. So I would say I am contributing exactly nothing (for good or for ill) to effect change on the ground in the US.

*rgh. I hate my keyboard sometimes. ¨ç¨^èé/

A veteran federal prosecutor recruited onto special counsel Robert Mueller's team is known for a skill that may come in handy in the investigation of potential ties between Russia and U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign team: persuading witnesses to turn on friends, colleagues and superiors.

Andrew Weissmann, who headed the U.S. Justice Department's criminal fraud section before joining Mueller's team last month, is best known for two assignments - the investigation of now-defunct energy company Enron and organized crime cases in Brooklyn, New York - that depended heavily on gaining witness cooperation.

Securing the cooperation of people close to Trump, many of whom have been retaining their own lawyers, could be important for Mueller, who was named by the Justice Department as special counsel on May 17 and is investigating, among other issues, whether Trump himself has sought to obstruct justice. Trump has denied allegations of both collusion and obstruction.

"Flipping" witnesses is a common, although not always successful, tactic in criminal prosecutions.

Robert Ray, who succeeded Kenneth Starr as the independent counsel examining former President Bill Clinton, noted that Trump's fired former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, has already offered through his lawyer to testify before Congress in exchange for immunity, suggesting potential willingness to cooperate as a witness.

"It would seem to me the time is now to make some decisions about what you have and what leverage can be applied to get the things you don't have," Ray said, referring to Mueller's team.

Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and others close to the president already have hired their own lawyers to help navigate Mueller's expanding probe and ongoing congressional investigations.

Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under former President Barack Obama, said Weissmann is willing to take risks to secure witness testimony that other prosecutors might not. Ruemmler worked with Weissmann on the Justice Department's Enron task force that investigated the massive corporate fraud that led to the company's 2001 collapse.

Ruemmler recalled that Weissmann had a hunch that former Enron treasurer Ben Glisan would be willing to talk despite already having pleaded guilty without agreeing to cooperate. So Weissmann had U.S. marshals bring Glisan before the grand jury from prison, Ruemmler said.

Other prosecutors might have feared Glisan's testimony could contradict their theory of the case, Ruemmler said, but Weissmann's gamble paid off when the former executive became a key witness.

"He's not afraid to lose, and that is sometimes an unusual quality," Ruemmler said of Weissmann.

Weissmann also led lengthy negotiations with lawyers for Andrew Fastow, Enron's former chief financial officer and a star prosecution witness in the case, gaining leverage from the fact that prosecutors had indicted Fastow's wife, also a former Enron employee, on tax fraud charges.

Both pleaded guilty, and Fastow testified against former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, who was convicted in 2006.

Fastow declined to comment. Glisan could not be reached for comment. Representatives for Mueller and the Trump legal team declined to comment.

On June 19 2017 10:20 Wegandi wrote:


Perhaps using appropriate language would be a start. Regardless, no one owns culture - it's nebulous and ever-changing. Also, again, that profit word. Are you really proposing it should be illegal to use your own property to sell Indian Cigar store merchandise if you're not a part of the tribe (just one example)? What about making and selling replica Amazonion tribe merchandise? Dogon stuff? Where does it end? We should be celebrating the fact that people want to experience these cultures and are willing to hand their money over to do so. The fact you overlook this and focus on "profit" reeks. The biggest offense to tribes in this country is the Government - not some joe schmoes selling a peace pipe or headdresses.

I suppose it would be better if no one gave a shit and those cultures were fossilized and put into some museum in the middle of no-where. As someone who has a Cherokee Nations flag in my room right now, I'd be ecstatic if more people decided to delve into the culture regardless if some white people were the ones selling the shit. Combine white people hate and capitalism hate into one and ride the moral high ground. Boom, cultural appropriation.

On June 20 2017 01:22 Plansix wrote:
Apparently Jason Chaffetz did an interview/op-ed(?) about why being a member of congress sucks and isn’t getting better. He also puts Sessions on blast, saying he is less responsive than Lynch. I don’t like Chaffetz that much, but I welcome any congress member talking about how dysfunctional that job is right now.

On June 20 2017 01:36 Gorsameth wrote:

It would be helpful to link said interview if you want people to talk about it because what he complains about makes a ton of difference. There are legitimate complains about the work of a congressmen and a lot of BS complaints.

On June 20 2017 01:42 Falling wrote:
Limited monopolies are granted to a particular execution of ideas (a book for instance- Treasure Island perhaps, but one cannot lock away the general idea of voyaging with pirates to find buried treasure) and inventions so the creator has time to profit from their product. And then it enters the public domain for all to use. Few have argued for the monopoly of natural resources since the days of mercantilism, that is pre-capitalism. I have more thoughts but I must go.

Senate leaders plan to rush a health-care bill to a vote, and there’s nothing Democrats can do about it

When the Republican-led Senate Rules Committee briefly flirted with the idea of restricting television interviews in the hallways of the Capitol last week, it became only the most obvious manifestation of how the party’s leaders were handling the development of a bill to overhaul Obamacare: out of the public eye.

While that effort was quickly sidelined after some outcry, the Republican leadership in the Senate was otherwise unfazed in its push to craft a bill that would expose its members to as little negative public attention as possible. No repeat of the town hall meetings that drew angry constituents who yelled at House Republicans and, they clearly hope, no weeks and weeks of swamped office phone lines.

In an article for the Monkey Cage, George Washington University’s Sarah Binder explained the four ways in which the Senate effort was unusually secretive. Sure, members of Congress would always rather pass legislation without dealing with negative criticism, but rarely have they gone so dark on such a big effort.

The question that arises, though, is what Democrats could actually do about it. Binder told me that the answer was probably a simple one.

Nothing.

“I have a hard time seeing a real avenue for successful obstruction by the Democrats,” Binder said. The situation is unusual enough that making hard and fast predictions is tricky, she said, but “Republicans have been so aggressive on procedure here that I’d expect them to … get this through without any heed of what the Democrats were raising.”

In particular, Binder addressed a proposal outlined in a series of tweets last week by Ezra Levin, a former deputy policy director for House Democrats. Levin suggested that the Democrats could introduce an almost infinite number of amendments that would choke the Senate calendar indefinitely until they got what they wanted.

The plan hinges on the way in which the bill is being moved through the Senate. To avoid the need for Democratic votes — which the Republican majority wouldn’t get — the Obamacare replacement is being advanced using what’s known as the reconciliation process. That process involves a special set of rules that are meant to fast-track debate over the budget, but, given that it also means legislation can avoid a filibuster in the Senate, it has also been used to pass controversial bills. (Several fixes essential to the passage of Obamacare were moved using the reconciliation process, for example.)

Those rules, defined by law, include allowing only 20 hours for debate but it also includes a process called “vote-a-rama,” in which amendments may be proposed and must be voted on before the final passage of the bill. That’s where Levin’s idea comes in: He proposed introducing tens of thousands of amendments that would need to be voted on before the Senate’s bill could be passed. In theory, Levin figured, Democrats could introduce enough amendments to shut down the Senate for a year.

Binder disagrees.

“In reality, that’s not going to happen,” she said. What was more likely, she said, is that someone would make a point of order that the Democrats were being “dilatory” — that is, slowing down the process unnecessarily. The presiding officer — the Republican senator on duty to manage floor debate — would be asked to rule on whether that was the case and would likely agree. Democrats could appeal the decision, but a majority vote would end the process.

It’s not just partisan politics that would lead to that outcome, either, Binder said. If the presiding officer were to appeal to the Senate parliamentarian — the resident expert on the rules of order — the recommendation would likely be the same. “The parliamentarian’s job is really to make the Budget Act work, and everybody knows that the Budget Act has time limits in it,” she said. An infinite vote-a-rama might be in keeping with the letter of the law, but not, importantly, the spirit.

“The weight of the law here is toward no filibusters,” she said. But she also noted that there was no “hard and fast precedent” for such a scenario since, normally, the two parties agree in advance on how long the process will extend.

Asked if the Democrats had any other recourse, Binder was skeptical.

“I don’t really see an escape valve for Democrats to delay it,” she said. The only question is whether the Senate bill — once it’s finalized — meets the rules for reconciliation and if the House accepts it as written. If it’s not eligible for reconciliation or if the House doesn’t want to agree to the Senate bill as written, then more traditional minority obstruction efforts might kick in. If, however, the Senate Republicans pass a measure that the House Republicans agree to in whole cloth, that’s it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is no doubt very well aware of his options. He’s betting that drafting the bill in secret and pushing it through the Senate with limited debate will give his caucus enough cover to vote yes — and that the House will agree to the bill. If he’s right, that means that only one group could stand in his way: Republicans on Capitol Hill, by defecting in the Senate or objecting in the House. The Democrats can probably only watch.

As U.S. Adds Troops in Afghanistan, Trump’s Strategy Remains Undefined

WASHINGTON — When President Trump made his first major decision on the war in Afghanistan, he did not announce it in a nationally televised address from the White House or a speech at West Point.

Instead, the Pentagon issued a news release late one afternoon last week confirming that the president had given the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, the authority to send several thousand additional troops to a war that, in its 16th year, engages about 8,800 American troops.

Mr. Trump, who writes avidly on Twitter about war and peace in other parts of the world, said nothing about the announcement. But its effect was unmistakable: He had outsourced the decision on how to proceed militarily in Afghanistan to the Pentagon, a startling break with how former President Barack Obama and many of his predecessors handled the anguished task of sending Americans into foreign conflicts.

The White House played down the Pentagon’s vaguely worded statement, which referred only to setting “troop levels” as a stopgap measure — a tacit admission of the administration’s internal conflicts over what to do about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

With a president who ran for office almost never having talked about the war, a coterie of political advisers who bitterly oppose deeper American engagement in it, and a national security team dominated by generals worried about the consequences if the United States does not act quickly, the decision could succeed in buying time for Mr. Trump and his advisers to fully deliberate over what to do in Afghanistan.

But former commanders and military scholars said that in sending troops before having a strategy, Mr. Trump has put the cart before the horse, eroded the tradition of civilian control over the military, and abdicated the president’s duty to announce and defend troop deployments.

“A commander in chief keeps control of limited wars by defining missions, selecting commanders and setting troop levels,” said Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who was a top commander and the American ambassador in Afghanistan. “To delegate any of these is dangerous.”

The decision to send additional troops represents at least a temporary victory for Mr. Mattis and Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser, over Mr. Trump’s aides, including his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who had warned that sending more troops was a slippery slope toward nation building, anathema to nationalists like him who reject both the interventionist neoconservatives of the George W. Bush administration and the limited war fought by Mr. Obama.

Those objections stymied the troop proposal several weeks ago. But officials said the White House was rattled by a huge truck bomb in Kabul, the Afghan capital, that killed more than 150, as well as by fears that military trends are running against the government of President Ashraf Ghani, an American-friendly former World Bank official, to the point that it might be in danger of collapse.

General McMaster — who served in Afghanistan as the head of an anti-corruption task force and is closely allied with Mr. Mattis, another former general with Afghanistan experience — argued passionately to Mr. Trump that the military effort had to be expanded without further delay, according to one official.

“What we are seeing now is that the president has acknowledged that the Afghan mission is important, and we ought to do it right,” said James Jay Carafano, a national security specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation who advised Mr. Trump’s presidential transition.

White House officials say they are still debating America’s role in Afghanistan — one senior adviser said they would consider issues as basic as whether the country needs a strong central government, rather than the warlords who have historically divided power there. In the meantime, the Pentagon is moving ahead with plans to send 3,000 to 5,000 troops to try to stabilize the country.

But it is not clear what Mr. Trump’s view of the strategy is, or even how involved he is in the debate. Officials said he did attend two National Security Council meetings last week — the first to discuss the troop issue, and the second to discuss the broader policy for South Asia.

Mr. Trump has said virtually nothing about Afghanistan since he was elected, or even since he started his campaign. But his views on the issue, based on Twitter posts when he was a private citizen, are uniformly hostile to America’s involvement in the war.

“It is time to get out of Afghanistan,” Mr. Trump wrote in 2012. “We are building roads and schools for people that hate us. It is not in our national interests.”

Even Mr. Mattis has acknowledged that more troops will not be sufficient without a broader strategy, which the White House does not plan to complete before mid-July. Among the major questions are how to deal with the sanctuaries that the Taliban and other militants still have in neighboring Pakistan, how to fight Afghanistan’s endemic corruption, and how to encourage a political settlement with the Taliban.

“The 3,000 to 5,000 may prevent a near-term backsliding, but it is not going to be decisive in turning the tide of this war,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, the top Pentagon policy official during the Obama administration. “The administration needs to accompany any troop increase with a new political and economic strategy to help the Afghans achieve greater stability.”

Some experts noted that Mr. Trump’s hands-off approach on troop numbers was squarely in the Republican tradition of avoiding anything perceived as micromanaging the military, a criticism frequently leveled at Mr. Obama. But the Pentagon has assumed an even more outsize role in this administration, given a chaotic White House staff and an impulsive, preoccupied president.

“The president doesn’t have the time or interest to make these decisions, so they want to leave the decision-making to Mattis,” said Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who advised General McMaster on his doctoral thesis. “They trust Mattis because he’s got the expertise and common sense.”

On Friday, the Pentagon said Mr. Mattis had not yet made a decision on the precise troop increase. Any decision will come only after the Pentagon consults with other government agencies, the Afghan government and NATO allies, a spokeswoman, Dana W. White, said in a statement, adding, “The secretary will continue to follow the president’s guidance on our overall strategy.”

+ Show Spoiler +.”