US Politics Mega-thread - Page 158

On May 01 2018 11:31 On_Slaught wrote:
This isn't a science. It can limit lobbying by removing entrenched individuals who have excessive influence (see any number of senior senators), which in turn lessens the influence of the lobbyists who control them. It can lower the power of lobbying by infusing the hill with people who aren't, or can't, get reelected and hence dont kowtow to lobbyist. It can hurt lobbyist by making it more financially difficult to own many congressmen since there will be more competitive, and hence more expensive, races because you dont have people who have owned seats for decades and are auto wins. Or maybe it makes everything worse, who knows. But I dont think its and open and shut case that things will be worse lobbying wise.

I still think there is merit to, and present examples concerning, the idea that when Senators are not running for reelection they become more reasonable. While it may not stop the influence of lobbying on them specifically, it definitely seems to diminish this party before country mindset.

On May 01 2018 19:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The BBC is frequently accused of every bias imaginable, simply because it is obliged to be impartial. The BBC is obliged to show an opposing view. This gets ridiculous when the BBC covers the occasional black and white issue like evolution deniers, where one side will have carte blanche to spout whatever they like without reprimand, and the moderator act like these are equal talking points, but such are the apparent terms of impartiality. I suppose the effect is similar in USA, but magnified.

On May 01 2018 11:31 On_Slaught wrote:
This isn't a science. It can limit lobbying by removing entrenched individuals who have excessive influence (see any number of senior senators), which in turn lessens the influence of the lobbyists who control them. It can lower the power of lobbying by infusing the hill with people who aren't, or can't, get reelected and hence dont kowtow to lobbyist. It can hurt lobbyist by making it more financially difficult to own many congressmen since there will be more competitive, and hence more expensive, races because you dont have people who have owned seats for decades and are auto wins. Or maybe it makes everything worse, who knows. But I dont think its and open and shut case that things will be worse lobbying wise.

I still think there is merit to, and present examples concerning, the idea that when Senators are not running for reelection they become more reasonable. While it may not stop the influence of lobbying on them specifically, it definitely seems to diminish this party before country mindset.

@zlefin, I think context matters. Having young aids clearly didn't help the senators with Zuckerburg. Telling your aids you want X in a bill and asking them to write something up is different. This is definitely a more nuanced issue and I agree switching to term limits solely to get younger people probably isn't reason enough to justify it. Dunno, I'm mostly just playing devils advocate here. Gerrymandering is the real issue that concerns me deeply.

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask President Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president’s thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. They deal chiefly with the president’s high-profile firings of the F.B.I. director and his first national security adviser, his treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But they also touch on the president’s businesses; any discussions with his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, about a Moscow real estate deal; whether the president knew of any attempt by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel to Russia during the transition; any contacts he had with Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser who claimed to have inside information about Democratic email hackings; and what happened during Mr. Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.

President Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday that it was “disgraceful” that questions the special counsel would like to ask him were publicly disclosed, and he incorrectly noted that there were no questions about collusion. The president also said collusion was a “phony” crime.

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr. Mueller’s investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago. The majority relate to possible obstruction of justice, demonstrating how an investigation into Russia’s election meddling grew to include an examination of the president’s conduct in office. Among them are queries on any discussions Mr. Trump had about his attempts to fire Mr. Mueller himself and what the president knew about possible pardon offers to Mr. Flynn.

“What efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.

A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?” No such outreach has been revealed publicly.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The questions serve as a reminder of the chaotic first 15 months of the Trump presidency and the transition and campaign before that. Mr. Mueller wanted to inquire about public threats the president made, conflicting statements from Mr. Trump and White House aides, the president’s private admissions to Russian officials, a secret meeting at an island resort, WikiLeaks, salacious accusations and dramatic congressional testimony.

The special counsel also sought information from the president about his relationship with Russia. Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump whether he had any discussions during the campaign about any meetings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and whether he spoke to others about either American sanctions against Russia or meeting with Mr. Putin.

Through his questions, Mr. Mueller also tries to tease out Mr. Trump’s views on law enforcement officials and whether he sees them as independent investigators or people who should loyally protect him.

For example, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was fired, the White House said he broke with Justice Department policy and spoke publicly about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server. Mr. Mueller’s questions put that statement to the test. He wants to ask why, time and again, Mr. Trump expressed no concerns with whether Mr. Comey had abided by policy. Rather, in statements in private and on national television, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.

On May 01 2018 20:42 zlefin wrote:


i'm playing devils' advocate too though (sort of); or mostly I'm just picking apart your arguments; rather than pushing my own stance. and on your zuckerberg case: that's not about context it's simply a question of being knowledgeable and effective; you could just as easily have young senators, who don' tlisten to their aids, asking ignorant questions on topics that affect old people (or just on any topic they're not knowledgeable about). that young people would happen to be more knowledgeable on the particulars of internet topics doesn't mean they'd do any better of a job in general.

it may not be a science, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence; it feels like you're doing it from a very theorycrafting standpoint; while others are doing it from the standpoint of : it's been empirically tested in several states, for decades, and it has not accomplished its goals.

On May 01 2018 22:59 On_Slaught wrote:


Except nobody has provided any evidence. A few people off handedly saying it hasn't worked at state levels while providing no specifics or data that show that things are objectively worse at the state level than the national isn't much to go against; hence this whole discussion is at best theory crafting and at worst ships passing in the night. Having said that, I'm willing to try and look into the evidence myself later when I'm bored at work. This was little more than a thought experiment and now I've been told about some stuff worth looking into.

On May 01 2018 23:11 zlefin wrote:

fair enough;
though there is a significant difference between pure theorycrafting (which seems like what you're doing); as compared to: "it's been tried, and i've read about the results, but don't have any citations/evidence handy as it was awhile ago"

Former New York congressman Michael Grimm is a felon who has admitted to hiring undocumented workers, hiding $900,000 from tax authorities and making false statements under oath. To hear him tell it, that’s a reason Staten Island Republicans should vote him back into office.

“It’s almost identical to what the president has been going through,” Grimm says of the federal investigation that led to his imprisonment. “It’s not an accident that under the Obama administration the Justice Department was used politically. And that is all starting to come out.”

Grimm has uncovered a new reality in the constantly changing world of Republican politics: Criminal convictions, once seen as career-enders, are no longer disqualifying. In the era of President Trump, even time spent in prison can be turned into a positive talking point, demonstrating a candidate’s battle scars in a broader fight against what he perceives as liberal corruption.

In a startling shift from “law-and-order Republicans,” Trump has attacked some branches of law enforcement, especially those pursuing white-collar malfeasance, as his allies and former campaign officials are ensnared in various investigations.

Following his lead, Republican Senate candidates with criminal convictions in West Virginia and Arizona have cast themselves as victims of the Obama administration’s legal overreach. Another former Trump adviser who has pleaded guilty to a felony has also become an in-demand surrogate, as Republicans jump at the chance to show their opposition to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Here’s a general rule of thumb: Lawmakers should not be law breakers,” said Susan Del Percio, a New York GOP consultant who advised Grimm in 2010 but opposes his candidacy. “I guess it’s a different political norm we are facing today.”

...

In West Virginia, former coal baron Don Blankenship, who calls himself “Trumpier than Trump,” has advertised heavily about what he says is the injustice of his misdemeanor conviction for conspiring to violate mine safety laws, which sent him to prison for a year. Echoing Trump, Blankenship casts himself as a “political prisoner” who was targeted unfairly by the Obama administration after an explosion at one of his mines killed 29 people.

On May 01 2018 20:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It was several years ago on world affairs, but since the BBC seem to have quite a few journalists in USA for whatever reason, it tends to report on American matters. Occasionally, we also get wierd stuff like gun control and climate change deniers, which doesn't have any real relevance to British politics or wider world reporting, but we seem to have an obsession with our American cousins. For whatever reason the BBC alway feels obliged to let the other side have say no matter how ridiculous it appears.

On May 02 2018 00:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I think this all comes down to the fact that at the end of the day, Trump believes the things he did are not actually bad because of the situation. Clinton was crooked, so he evened the playing field. Deep state was against him, so he fought back. He did bad things because he felt like he was OWED that normalization. He sees the illegal things he does as fair.