US Politics Mega-thread - Page 129

On April 20 2018 06:06 Introvert wrote:


Reid controlled the Senate like no majority leader before him, often the phrase "iron fist" was used. Not bringing things to the floor was one of his specialties, it's why Obama vetoed fewer bills than (almost?) any other president before him.

***

The Mueller bill is dumb signaling. A) Trump won't sign it, B) it's not even clear that Congress has the authority to protect a special counsel.

On April 20 2018 06:17 Plansix wrote:

Yeah, but he was the leader of the Senate from 2005-2015 and that was not his practice during the Bush years. I am aware that post 2010 House republicans didn’t like him under Obama because he killed their ACA repeals and whatever other trash bills they kicked up to the Senate to die. I am also aware that is why the House Republicans did it, because it’s easy to vote for bad bills that you know won’t become law.

And I disagree that the bill is a bad idea. It is a vote on the record that Republicans will vote against the President if pushed. The president is free to veto the bill if he wants. Just like Obama did with all those ACA repeals that the Republican House and Senate voted through.

On April 20 2018 07:00 Introvert wrote:


Of course that wasn't his practice, the other party controlled the white house.

Well at least this post is closer to correct than the first one.

All we learn from the Mueller bill is who gets their authority and who wants to "send a message." I'm no fan of McConnell but there is no reason to let this bill go that far. At least repealing the ACA was within their power.

On April 20 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:

A requirement that the executive branch demonstrate good cause for firing Mueller is not unreasonable, especially since it is in the justice department regs. Creating a formal process for the regulations to be enforced is not outside their power. They are not creating new powers for congress.

On April 20 2018 07:22 Introvert wrote:


The debate over regs only exists on the fringes because most know that an internal executive branch regulation is not going to stop the executive. And the question isn't new powers, it's about encroaching separation of powers issues. I think even Graham knows this is an issue, but it's all about "sending a message."

But this is the debate, but apparently it only concerns certain Republicans. It's a joke.

On April 20 2018 07:33 Plansix wrote:

The President, being the executive, is bound by the regulations that the executive branch creates. He appoint people to rewrite the regulations, but he cannot circumvent them. And the regulations require that the AG have good cause to fire the special counsel. The whim of the president is no good cause.

And again, if you want to talk about bills sending a message being a joke, is sort of undercuts Harry Reid being some tyrant for killing bills that would not survive a filibuster or be vetoed.

On April 20 2018 07:39 Introvert wrote:


Wait, are you talking only about him directly firing him? that's still not 100% clear cut.

"Iron fist" wasn't my term. That was how to was reported and analyzed. In the narrow instance of the majority leader killing bills that are already dead, we all that I don't object to as much. I still think the two situations aren't the same because of the dubiousness of the action in the first place.

But my phone is dying so I'll just say that I wanted to remind people that McConnell isn't the first strong man majority leader (and trust me, as a conservative, I've seen McConnell use it agaisnt Senate conservatives).

The U.S. attorney’s office met with McCabe’s legal team in recent weeks, though it was not immediately clear whether prosecutors there were conducting their own investigation or believed criminal charges are appropriate.

The referral raises the possibility that McCabe could be charged and jailed for his alleged misconduct — perhaps with Comey testifying as a witness against him. A referral to federal prosecutors, though, does not necessarily mean McCabe will be charged.

On April 20 2018 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:
This seems pretty big. Would be crazy if Comey ended up testifying against him

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inspector-general-referred-findings-on-mccabe-to-us-attorney-for-consideration-of-criminal-charges/2018/04/19/a200cabc-43f3-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_mccabe-210pm:homepage/story

Michael R. Bromwich, McCabe’s lawyer, said in a statement: “We were advised of the referral within the past few weeks. Although we believe the referral is unjustified, the standard for an [inspector general] referral is very low. We have already met with staff members from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We are confident that, unless there is inappropriate pressure from high levels of the Administration, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will conclude that it should decline to prosecute.”

North Korea has dropped its long-held demand that the United States withdraw forces from South Korea in exchange for denuclearization, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said Thursday.

The United States has about 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea, a presence that has long irked North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

However, in the burgeoning spirit of openness and diplomacy, Moon said Kim is willing to give up US troops' removal as a precondition for discussions over denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

"North Korea has expressed willingness to give up its nuclear program without making (a) demand that the (US Forces Korea) forces withdraw from the Korean Peninsula," Moon said in a meeting with the press, adding that any proposed troop withdrawal would be a "condition that the US cannot accept."

The South Korean leader, due to meet Kim next week for a historic summit in the Demilitarized Zone, the border separating the two countries, said that the North was concerned about its security.

On April 20 2018 09:06 Plansix wrote:
Trumps constant attacks against McCabe make any criminal charge against him very challenging for a prosecutor. But you can bet the House Republicans will scream to high heaven if no charges are brought.

On April 20 2018 10:25 Tachion wrote:

Wouldn't Trump's comments have more to do with the validity of his dismissal rather than any charges brought against him for misleading investigators?

On April 20 2018 10:02 On_Slaught wrote:
While I would love NK denuclearization, I just can't see it happening. It is literally their only ticket to the big boy table. The idea they would give that up short of the US leaving and the peninsula being unified and made an ally of China just seems implausible. Until shown otherwise, no reason to think this won't amount to jack-all just like all the previous times.

Or maybe Trump ends up being an idiot savant and solves the issue. Who knows.