|
On December 15 2018 08:18 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to these House subpoenas coming in January. This is a non-exclusive list of entities currently under investigation for possible crimes:
Trump campaign
Trump inauguration
Trump organization
Trump foundation
Trump himself (obstruction)
List of individuals who have plead guilty or been convicted of crimes:
Trump's campaign manager
Trump's National Security Advisor
Trump's longtime personal lawyer
Trump's campaign aide and inauguration manager
Another campaign aide
Now there's a man living on a dream. The lying's what got him elected and won him a legion of millions of fans across America who believe he's the one telling the truth.
There's nothing there that'll take down Trump. It won't even damage him. His supporters consider it all lies, and everybody who hates him already suspects all this stuff anyway. I mean, the access Hollywood tape barely affected him in the least and it bordered on a Presidential candidate openly admitting to sexual assault in his own words.
|
On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens.
What the fuck were these guys doing?
The literal basis for the Flynn controversy is gone, and all Team Mueller can produce are other 302s referencing the original. (Such and such was documented in this 302...)
+ Show Spoiler +
The 302 where they documented this is missing.
Also, Grassley's office is pressing on the DIA classified briefing that allegedly contains a key piece of information.
Grassley claims it doesn't impact national security, according to representations from DIA personnel. Let's see it.
|
On December 15 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens. What the fuck were these guys doing? The literal basis for the Flynn controversy is gone, and all Team Mueller can produce are other 302s referencing the original. (Such and such was documented in this 302...) + Show Spoiler +Also, Grassley's office is pressing on the DIA classified briefing that allegedly contains a key piece of information. https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1073624309518794753Grassley claims it doesn't impact national security, according to representations from DIA personnel. Let's see it.
What are you guys hoping vs thinking will come of this stuff?
|
On December 15 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens. What the fuck were these guys doing? The literal basis for the Flynn controversy is gone, and all Team Mueller can produce are other 302s referencing the original. (Such and such was documented in this 302...) + Show Spoiler +Also, Grassley's office is pressing on the DIA classified briefing that allegedly contains a key piece of information. https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1073624309518794753Grassley claims it doesn't impact national security, according to representations from DIA personnel. Let's see it.
Interestingly Flynn was ostensibly fired from the administration after lying to Pence. That is, after telling the same lie that he told to the FBI. Which was in fact a lie. That 302 apparently talks about whether he exhibited signs of lying but I guessing they actually had some sort of evidence, beyond the 302, that he was lying.
|
On December 15 2018 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens. What the fuck were these guys doing? The literal basis for the Flynn controversy is gone, and all Team Mueller can produce are other 302s referencing the original. (Such and such was documented in this 302...) + Show Spoiler +Also, Grassley's office is pressing on the DIA classified briefing that allegedly contains a key piece of information. https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1073624309518794753Grassley claims it doesn't impact national security, according to representations from DIA personnel. Let's see it. What are you guys hoping vs thinking will come of this stuff?
I personally don't have any hopes or expectations for what will come out of it. Just get to the bottom of apparent destruction of evidence. Normally, I'd say the counterintel chief and FBI chair should resign in disgrace over what's coming to light...
but Strzok and Comey are already gone for related and unrelated mischief.
|
On December 15 2018 14:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2018 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 15 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens. What the fuck were these guys doing? The literal basis for the Flynn controversy is gone, and all Team Mueller can produce are other 302s referencing the original. (Such and such was documented in this 302...) + Show Spoiler +Also, Grassley's office is pressing on the DIA classified briefing that allegedly contains a key piece of information. https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1073624309518794753Grassley claims it doesn't impact national security, according to representations from DIA personnel. Let's see it. What are you guys hoping vs thinking will come of this stuff? I personally don't have any hopes or expectations for what will come out of it. Just get to the bottom of apparent destruction of evidence. Normally, I'd say the counterintel chief and FBI chair should resign in disgrace over what's coming to light... but Strzok and Comey are already gone for related and unrelated mischief.
Pretty sure getting to the bottom of it would be either a hope or an expectation.
Either way seems like a bit of a waste where even if they confirm your suspicions there's no measure of accountability for the people you're suspicious of.
|
On December 15 2018 16:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2018 14:23 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2018 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 15 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens. What the fuck were these guys doing? The literal basis for the Flynn controversy is gone, and all Team Mueller can produce are other 302s referencing the original. (Such and such was documented in this 302...) + Show Spoiler +Also, Grassley's office is pressing on the DIA classified briefing that allegedly contains a key piece of information. https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1073624309518794753Grassley claims it doesn't impact national security, according to representations from DIA personnel. Let's see it. What are you guys hoping vs thinking will come of this stuff? I personally don't have any hopes or expectations for what will come out of it. Just get to the bottom of apparent destruction of evidence. Normally, I'd say the counterintel chief and FBI chair should resign in disgrace over what's coming to light... but Strzok and Comey are already gone for related and unrelated mischief. Pretty sure getting to the bottom of it would be either a hope or an expectation. Either way seems like a bit of a waste where even if they confirm your suspicions there's no measure of accountability for the people you're suspicious of.
Truest thing I've read since 2016.
On December 15 2018 08:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2018 18:13 ReditusSum wrote:On December 14 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:
The judge in the Flynn case may be getting ready to drop the hammer on the DOJ. After Flynn submitted his sentencing memo outlining how he was set up, the judge entered a minute order directing Mueller's team to immediately produce the McCabe memo outlining the set up and the August 2017 302 of the interview with Flynn that Mueller relied upon for pressuring Flynn, as well as any other documents relating to the meeting. All of this stuff has to be submitted by tomorrow, and the sentencing will occur Tuesday. I hope so. This kind of thing has to stop. Our DoJ makes the criminals they prosecute look like romper room nobodies. Well, Mueller probably just pissed off the judge. He only filed the McCabe memo and the Strzok 302 from August 2017. What’s missing are the notes of the agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok (it’s probable that Mueller or the FBI destroyed these). It will be interesting to see what happens.
I forgot that it's legal for the government to lie, cheat, steal, assault, murder... but if you say you talked to Johnny on Saturday the 28th but it was actually Saturday the 27th then you're a federal felon.
|
You remembered incorrectly. There's a difference between these things being legal and just being allowed to get away with them.
|
This judge’s decision striking Obamacare is quite interesting. He reasons 1) Obamacare was only upheld as being constitutional on the grounds that it is a tax, 2) the removal of the individual mandate removes the tax, and 3) Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause per the hybrid majority opinion from the first Obamacare case.
|
On December 16 2018 01:16 xDaunt wrote:
This judge’s decision striking Obamacare is quite interesting. He reasons 1) Obamacare was only upheld as being constitutional on the grounds that it is a tax, 2) the removal of the individual mandate removes the tax, and 3) Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause per the hybrid majority opinion from the first Obamacare case.
Funny that we agree we should junk the ACA for socialized healthcare and Democrats (and your Republican brethren) are the ones fighting for the insurers.
|
On December 16 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2018 01:16 xDaunt wrote:
This judge’s decision striking Obamacare is quite interesting. He reasons 1) Obamacare was only upheld as being constitutional on the grounds that it is a tax, 2) the removal of the individual mandate removes the tax, and 3) Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause per the hybrid majority opinion from the first Obamacare case. Funny that we agree we should junk the ACA for socialized healthcare and Democrats (and your Republican brethren) are the ones fighting for the insurers.
Would junking the ACA lead to socialised healthcare, though? Or would it just be a return to the old insurance system?
|
On December 16 2018 01:16 xDaunt wrote:
This judge’s decision striking Obamacare is quite interesting. He reasons 1) Obamacare was only upheld as being constitutional on the grounds that it is a tax, 2) the removal of the individual mandate removes the tax, and 3) Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause per the hybrid majority opinion from the first Obamacare case.
I should be more precise in my explanation of 2) above. Congress’s removal of the penalty associated with the individual mandate is what removes the tax status of Obamacare.
EDIT: I just finished reading through the opinion. It is remarkably well-written and well-reasoned. Obamacare is dead. I have no doubt that the case will make its way back up to the Supreme Court, but the result is going to be the same. In fact, some of the liberal justices will likely join the conservative majority.
|
On December 16 2018 01:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 16 2018 01:16 xDaunt wrote:
This judge’s decision striking Obamacare is quite interesting. He reasons 1) Obamacare was only upheld as being constitutional on the grounds that it is a tax, 2) the removal of the individual mandate removes the tax, and 3) Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause per the hybrid majority opinion from the first Obamacare case. Funny that we agree we should junk the ACA for socialized healthcare and Democrats (and your Republican brethren) are the ones fighting for the insurers. Would junking the ACA lead to socialised healthcare, though? Or would it just be a return to the old insurance system?
Naturally you cant trust any of our politicians farther than you can throw them so no I didn't mean in that order.
This is why they were supposed to pass it in the first place and should have been working toward it ever since. Unfortunately Democrats dug in their heels to protect the donor and consultant classes and shows no sign of changing. and as xDaunt suggests may have already lost their chance to keep it.
The media isn't looking much better where they're already trying to pretend several Democrats people have never even heard of are legitimate contenders and that Bernie is a long shot in the primary.
Taking a sober look at our current situation and trajectory I don't really see us averting global war and/or catastrophe. The kind of radical political changes needed across the world to adequately prevent the consequences of climate change and water/energy shortages from being terminal for billions of people seem outside the realm of our current politics.
We're currently arguing on whether we're going to take the steps necessary to keep it to around hundreds of millions dead, billions displaced, and even more without drinkable water or adequate energy. With water rights, habitable lands, and precious metals bought up by billionaires and everything we consume being a product of borderless corporations governments around the world will be unable to meet their peoples' basic needs and in their ignorance will turn to the corporations for salvation from the hellscape we'll have turned large swaths of the planet into.
I've never wanted to be wrong more, but I don't know the alternative (save global action by the masses). Even xDaunt's position implicitly accepts this future and argues to make our position as strong as possible and hope we make it through and the corporations feel some obligation to what remains of the US (despite already threatening to abandon the country over a few percent in taxes).
|
So let me see if I this straight.
Step one: Congress passes the ACA, including the individual mandate, under the interstate commerce power, which had previously been interpreted broadly enough to cover this kind of thing. The whole thing, but mainly the individual mandate is challenged in court as unconstitutional, based on a constitutional reinterpretation that was conceived after the ACA was passed; the court accepts this reinterpretation, but leaves the ACA intact under the tax power.
Step two: Congress sneaks an individual mandate repeal into another bill, through a legislative process in which they couldn't legally repeal the rest if they wanted to; at any rate, they explicitly don't repeal the rest of it, just the individual mandate, which was supposed to be the most constitutionally problematic part under this new reinterpretation of the commerce clause conceived after the ACA was passed.
Step three: they sue to have the court throw out the rest of the ACA, which has now been stripped of the one portion that was most vulnerable to constitutional challenge, on the grounds that the provision which the 2017 Congress explicitly separated from the rest of the ACA and repealed (without repealing any of the rest of it) is not, in fact, separable from the rest, so Congress was actually repealing the whole ACA, which would have been a violation of the Senate's rules if they had known it.
I eagerly await an explanation of how this logic is undeniable. Because it sure looks like Republicans are just prepared to burn judicial legitimacy to the ground if it lets them repeal Obamacare without having to be held responsible for actually repealing Obamacare. Honestly, it reminds me of a Peasant Railgun in the level of ruleset-switching and motivated reasoning required to reach a desired outcome.
|
You aren’t going to get any real argument from me. The Republicans on Capitol Hill during the first two years of Trump’s presidency were a fucking disgrace.
But no, this does not burn judicial leigitimacy down.
|
The Russia Investigations: A Case Still Unproven
Love when they change the headline but not the url so you can see how it changed:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-an-unfinished-case-looks-weaker-than-ever
This coincides with what I've been seeing elsewhere seeming to try to let Democrats know this is going to come down to 2020.
From what is visible today, however, the case is still Swiss cheese. Unless that changes in a big way, the hottest political story in a generation may lose its place in center stage.
The continued slide of the core Russia "collusion" story, if that is what indeed happens, is politically relevant to the other investigations and potential problems confronting the president.
Because the hush-money payments and the potential international contributions to the inauguration campaign aren't about Russia, it provides a talking point to the White House:
The "deep state" couldn't make Russia stick, Trump argues, and so its conspirators have gone on an expedition for other mud to sling. That, he hopes, will mean that none of it sticks.
Once the 2020 candidates start campaigning in earnest MSNBC/CNN will have to break off their constant coverage of Trump to pump up the non-Bernie candidates else the primary be a complete blowout. No one can/has coalesced Hillary's camp let alone the Obama coalition so without heavy support and coverage from the media they won't be able to get the exposure necessary to overcome Bernie's overwhelming name recognition and grassroots support.
Bernie is basically going to occupy the slot Trump did in 2016 except he's immensely more favorable.
|
All of these foreign collusion narratives as they pertain to Trump and his team are patently retarded. That much has been obvious for a very long time. The best explanation that I have heard for why Mueller and the DOJ have pushed it so hard is that they are trying to create a post hoc rationalization for having abused NSA surveillance on Trump and his team for political reasons. This is the essence of what Nunez was highlighting during his press conference last year.
|
On December 16 2018 02:58 xDaunt wrote:
All of these foreign collusion narratives as they pertain to Trump and his team are patently retarded. That much has been obvious for a very long time. The best explanation that I have heard for why Mueller and the DOJ have pushed it so hard is that they are trying to create a post hoc rationalization for having abused NSA surveillance on Trump and his team for political reasons. This is the essence of what Nunez was highlighting during his press conference last year.
If the worst thing that happens after our intelligence agencies illegally spy on a presidential candidate (let alone a president if that's the case) is that they lose their jobs (they probably would have lost anyway) enough for you to want to take away their ability to do it, or are you still willing to sacrifice that liberty for the security you think it provides?
|
I mean, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not gonna argue the decision with you. But from the perspective of a non-lawyer, if after all of this fighting over Obamacare the last 8 years ending in what appeared to be the Republicans failing to repeal it, the thing gets tossed out on what seems to be, at best, a technicality (and, more likely, a ginned-up bullshit argument that's intentionally obfuscated to obscure its logical weakness), by a conservative judge in Texas issuing his opinion just after midterms but just before open enrollment starts, later upheld by SCOTUS, in part, because of the possible rapist Republicans were willing to crawl over broken glass to put on the court?
I'd say it looks a lot like the courts have become an arm of the Republican party.
And I'm not sure you're appreciating how bad that perception could be. I'm not gonna get into the business of predicting 2020 right now, but one way or another, Republicans won't be in power forever. Whether in 2 years, or 4 years, or 6 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, somebody else will take power at some point. Maybe GH will get his way and the Dems will choke and die, and the Green party or somebody will take over. One way or another, when they take power, there's gonna be the question of what to do about the courts.
Maybe the courts between now and then will do their job, stay relatively impartial, and allow them to achieve their policy goals by democratic means. Even if they repeal Roe v. Wade, at least liberals can hope to win elections and pass the policies they support. But if the courts start throwing out democratically enacted policy reforms, based on thin legal technicalities and Constitutional reinterpretations invented after the fact, it starts to look, from a liberal perspective, like there's no point in big legislative pushes to enact M4A or UBI or whatever else; whatever you pass, the courts will just find some bullshit reason to throw it out. At that point phrases like "court packing" start to seem like the only way to restore democracy. And honestly, flawed as the courts have been, I don't want to have to find out how well our institutions withstand a thing like that.
I will ask this about O'Connor's opinion, though. The 2017 repeal claimed to be limited to just the individual mandate. Otherwise, they couldn't have passed it by reconciliation. So if O'Connor figures the individual mandate is inseparable, why is it not the 2017 repeal being thrown out? Apparently the 2012 Congress's actions were constitutional, while the 2017 Congress's actions were not; so why throw out the 2012 Congress's bill just to make the 2017 Congress's bill fit within the constitution again? Hell, couldn't a liberal justice argue just as plausibly that it's the 2017 tax bill, not Obamacare, that was unconstitutional and inseparable, and therefore must be thrown out in its entirety?
|
On December 16 2018 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2018 02:58 xDaunt wrote:
All of these foreign collusion narratives as they pertain to Trump and his team are patently retarded. That much has been obvious for a very long time. The best explanation that I have heard for why Mueller and the DOJ have pushed it so hard is that they are trying to create a post hoc rationalization for having abused NSA surveillance on Trump and his team for political reasons. This is the essence of what Nunez was highlighting during his press conference last year. If the worst thing that happens after our intelligence agencies illegally spy on a presidential candidate (let alone a president if that's the case) is that they lose their jobs (they probably would have lost anyway) enough for you to want to take away their ability to do it, or are you still willing to sacrifice that liberty for the security you think it provides?
No, I'm no longer willing to trust the government with that kind of power. And I'm not alone in that assessment. Democrats are largely oblivious to the real scandal here because the mainstream media has been intentionally ignoring it (in large part because they don't want to admit how badly they were manipulated and played by the bad actors), but conservatives are very much engaged and paying attention. And they are angry. We are at an inflection point as it pertains to the relationship of the government to the people. People are beginning to lose faith in the government because they can see the rampant abuse of all of these unaccountable bureaucrats. We've had a very good look at the swamp, and we do not like what we see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
