Senate The US Politics discussion

Excellent article on how the Supreme Court will likely continue to find ways to uphold power grabs by Trump whilst invalidating similar actions by Democratic presidents in the future.

I’ve said it before, the next period of united Democratic control in Washington is going to require some type of judicial reform enacted by the legislative and executive branches. The Roberts Court has made it clear that Republican presidents have free reign, while Democratic presidents do not. The only way to push back on this is either by limiting their jurisdiction or adding seats. If Democrats aren’t even willing to consider the possibility, then the game has already been lost.

 

I find it ironic that Barr is the man under who Ruby Ridge and beginning of planning for the Waco Siege happened, two events that contributed to the hysteria about "taking our guns" and Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

 

“What I wanna know is why Roger Stone is on Instagram.”
- me

“He acts like a sophomoric, idiotic teenager, anyway. His choice to work for Trump was stupid. What kind of mother****er gets Nixon tattooed on his back?”
- My Eponym

“Well, I have our name on my left shoulder.”
- me

“Yeah, well, I’m worth a tattoo.”
- My Eponym

 

We do love in interesting times, I hope we continue to love

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...ael-cohn-probe-nyt_n_5c6c5515e4b0867082df08c6

President Donald Trump attempted to interfere with the case against Michael Cohen, his former personal attorney and fixer, by installing a loyalist to oversee it, according to a new report from The New York Times.

Following the abrupt departure of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November, Trump reportedly dialed his newly installed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to ask whether U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman could be placed in charge of the Cohen investigation. The outlet cited several “American officials” with knowledge of the call.

Berman had been chosen by Trump to lead the New York district and seemed a safe choice for the president; he donated $5,400 to the Trump campaign in 2016.

 

Kellyanne is trying to do damage control by calling McCabe a known liar and a leaker.

Pot. Ketttle.

 

Kellyann is a bearer of alternative truths. It's very different

 

And the fight to change libel laws begins.

After the article I posted yesterday quoting Justice Thomas's desire to overturn previous precedent on this matter, it's clear that there is a plan in place to get specific cases in front of the Supreme Court. Of course, given the fact that he opined so specifically on this, Justice Thomas should clearly recuse himself should a libel case come before the high court. He won't, and yet another 5-4 decision that a majority of the public will disagree with will be forced upon the American people.

In broader terms, I've been pondering how much longer people will stand for decisions they view as illegitimate. A cadre has felt this way about Roe for decades and Oberfell since 2015, but a majority of the public support both positions. It makes me wonder which outcome is more desirable--Trump winning re-election in 2020, which increases the chances of a full Democratic control of Congress after 2022 with united Democratic control of Washington possible by 2024 or a Democrat unseating him next year, which will put the Senate out of reach in 2022 and possibly lead to losing the House as well.

Given that we're likely in for a protracted period of divided government, the question now becomes: which division is better? IMHO, it's better to have the Senate/White House in terms of executive policy and judges, but there are benefits to holding one or both Houses of Congress but not the Oval Office when it comes to passing legislation and certain in regards to Congressional oversight.

Thoughts?

 

Has the lawsuit been publicized somewhere? The damages sought are ludicrous in amount (enough that the child, his kids and his grand-kids would never have to work a day in their lives), but there might be something interesting to look at in the grounds invoked.

 

Not yet (as far as I know). But I'm sure it's coming.

Regardless, a sitting Supreme Court justice who opines on how they would change a precedent should recuse themselves from any similar case. Which he won't.

Of course, if RBG did something similar, the calls for her recusal from the Right would be deafening. Such is the world in which we live.

 

I've just found it - turns out the lawyers posted it on their blog. Going to try and see if I can make sense of it (still quite feverish )

EDIT -

So...

Basically, the angle invoked in the lawsuit (all allegedly) is the existence of seven articles and three tweets containing a rather high count (multiple dozens) of false and "defamatory per se" statements and implications ("gist"), widely relayed by third parties and social media, about a private figure who is also a minor, negligently, with actual knowledge of falsity, and with malice, resulting in permanent reputation damage, in temporary and permanent psychological suffering, and in physical threats to the minor and his family, which the Post consciously acted indifferent of.

Or, in short: "the Post knowingly lied about a minor who was unknown to the public, knowing it would result in damage and threats and by which channels".

Not my type of legal system (the structure of the lawsuit is similar to one here, but we have a civil law system), and I'm not in the best of shape, but the corner I see trying to be forced there is the one about a minor who was a complete unknown being "thrown to the social media wolves". From which I suppose one could continue digging if successful.

They also warn that there will be many similar cases coming, but that's obviously not part of the lawsuit.

 

In a parallel to the situation in Virginia, a Republican Tennessee state representative has been accused by three women of rape when he was a coach. The Republican head of the state house of reps has asked for him to resign.

.... nah, just kidding. She defended him, expressing disbelief in the women's stories by saying that women who were really raped would've moved out of the area to get away from the rapist.

 

The problem they'll have is, if the douchebag, I mean kid, is treated as a public figure for limited purposes, the standard of proof for actual malice is higher than the preponderance of evidence. Its is Clear and Convincing Evidence, which is a standard of proof that is higher than preponderance of evidence but not as high as beyond reasonable doubt. Good luck to them with that.

 

Thanks for that insight.

 

'Ain't nothing like appointing a pyromaniac to head a Fire Department', or how the White House is approaching setting up its panel to assess the threats to national security resultant from climate change:

There can't possibly be a problem with that type of assertion, right?

Nevermind, he's perfect.

 

Who's he an advocate for, plants? They are the only beneficiaries of rising CO2 levels as far as I can see. Everyone else loses out.

 

Though I am far from an expert I am not sure that is necessarily so. It is not uncommon for justices to opine in their decisions, concurring or dissenting, to highlight when and where they believe that constitutional jurisprudence as gone of the rails so to speak. And these opines do not require justices to "recuse" themselves for pertinent future cases. I don't believe that constitutes a conflict of interest.

 

Strategically speaking, I suppose making the planet incapable of supporting a population above a billion or so works to the advantage of the most overarmed state.

 

Faux News:

 

Not on its face, no. But he should not give an indication of how he would rule, which he clearly has done in this case. It's also harder from him to claim his comments are appropriate when the pro forma answer for SC candidates on similarly-asked questions always seems to be "I cannot comment on a case that may come before me as a sitting Justice."

So respectfully, I would say this is open to at least some interpretation.

 

I didn't realize what a complete disaster Pence's appearance at the Munich security conference was ( and why the **** is Trump's daughter there, exactly?) Even Pence was taken aback by the complete silence to his opening statement and call to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal.
But what I find most interesting is that when the White House posted the transcript online, not only did they insert nonexistent 'applause', they also included parts of the speech that Pence didn't even say.

 

Obviously...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/politics/special-counsel-conclusion-announcement/index.html

End of the line, or tip of the iceberg?

I vote for the latter.