Printable View
I had forgotten about the baseball tickets.Quote:
The 6-figure debts maintained for many years, the disappearing debts as of this year, the extremely bizarre excuses for the debts
Perhaps smart enough knowing they can't ask anything relevant?Quote:
I've been listening to the hearing since 10 AM. Prosecutor Mitchell seems nice, at least. Striking that no Republicans other than Grassley seem to have addressed Ford.
I can't imagine why the Republicans are still pushing him through. Their goal is to pack the court with conservatives, but putting Kavanaugh up will jeopardize this. His testimony through the entire conformation process has been sprinkled with lies, and every step the Republicans take to get this done just pisses off the Democrats more and more. The Senate election map is already not kind to the GOP in 2020 (even without the inevitable pissed off women voters), and with a few years of digging the press, or the Dems with subpoena power, can definitely unearth enough facts to prove the he perjured himself to the Senate during these hearings, either about the sexual assaults or other issues. If he gets on SCOTUS, I foresee a Democratic Congress impeaching him after 2020, when they can confirm either a liberal or moderate (if Trump manages to hold on, go forbid) to replace him. The Democrats will not forget this or Merrick Garland.
Like I said. Quote any three minutes of the Trump press conference and no MSNBC reporter would have to impart the negative spin they so love to use. Just quote him, look at the camera and remark. "Chris, I don't think I need to add a thing."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
This is such a train wreck that Avenatti -- an archetypally sleazy ambulance chaser -- is coming off professionally in comparison to our head of state. Gack.
Trump bragging about Canada sucks and turned them down.
Canada responds: "No meeting was requested".
He is a bare-faced liar who might as well be living in another plane of existence.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Exhausting.
I heard a couple of Republican women phone in, and their takes (paraphrasing):
1. I was almost raped by three guys on the side of a road, but they were chased off by passersby. I think Ford is not credible because she was only "almost" raped, so she should have got over it by now just like I did.
2. I and my daughter are victims who have overcome. I think Ford is credible but I think Kavanaugh is credible too, and I don't understand why Ford is doing this. Does she think it's to prevent Kavanaugh from further victimizing women through his judicial work? I just don't get it!
Strange people. :shrug:
Other observations:
The prosecutor was chosen to soften the Republican presence and questioning. I think successfully. Cleverly chosen. Watched Kavanaugh only intermittently, did she have a heel turn?
If Kavanaugh falls the viscous ensuing relief and joy will immobilize almost any scrutiny against the replacement nominee. They can probably get 20 Democrats voting for him or her at that point.
From everything I've seen of Kavanaugh, he doesn't sound like what I'd think a judge would sound like. He always talks like a seasoned politician. His rhetoric is that of political gamesmanship, the campaign rally, the scandal presser.
Kavanaugh repeatedly lying that Ford's named witnesses (i.e. present at the party) have refuted her recollection his most egregious of the day. Ted Cruz boosting it for his part.
Power is doing something just because you can, to prove that you can and will. We see it so often in action films, where the big bad randomly cuts down one of their henchman in front of the hero and no one even blinks. Same idea. Kavanaugh, please go down like the 80's movie villain you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)
Bad advice, that's why his supporters love him. "He tells it like it is!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
He's rather more high-powered than that. I would say he's an archetypical hotshot lawyer in the public imagination. Apparently he's consciously mirroring Trump and Giuliani, if only because the media love to give Trump and Giuliani screen time. He's been pretty successful at it. Also, you should take everything he does seriously in the context of his (teased) 2020 presidential run. Insofar as his lawyering is aggressive and successful, he will use it to plump himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Their compatriots in the lower house would probably prefer they drop this lying sot, it might keep them from losing over 40 seats in a few weeks. In normal times, the GOP would be picking up a few seats in the Senate this cycle, but now they will be lucky to keep their current advantage. I have a feeling Pence will be spending a lot of time at the Capitol next term...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
They will put him in. People still don't understand the stakes here.
They dont care about public opinion, they obfuscate to the degree that is needed to disorient the public and proceed to cement themselves institutionally for another 40 years, at any means necessary.
This is the end of our current iteration of institutions as designed post WW2.
From Revolution to Civil War to existential threat to...idk what to even call this sudden lack of dignity.
You're probably right. Arguably Kavanaugh would have been pulled already if that were the play. But it really depends on the behind-the-scenes details of Kavanaugh's nomination. How will Trump be swayed, and does it matter? Is Kavanaugh a bought man from the outset? Does the national GOP expect to pre-empt Democrats the opportunity to pack the courts by future elections?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But basically this -
- would be irrelevant if the Republicans have privately moved fully beyond the concept of normal electoral politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
I mean, I sure hope the optimists are right. It delays the timetable for the collapse of civil society by a year or so.
We need more time for the Democratic Party to realize they're responsible for prosecuting a war.
I hate to say this but they won't realize the magnitude of this ongoing political war until it is too late. God forbid RBG falls ill and Trump replaces her with another Federalist shill...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Then we are going to be in for potential large scale riots when, not if, the last four decades of liberal progress vanishes in half a decade under activist conservative judges.
So Sen. Flake flaked on his opposition to Kavanaugh. On the basis of a verbal "gentlemen's and women's" agreement with Sen. Grassley for a 1-week FBI investigation before the full vote on the floor.
Obvious cake-having-eating rubbish. Flake was literally the only person holding up the confirmation. There's nothing stopping a vote forthwith.
99% probability: Every Republican votes to confirm.
90% probability: At least 1 Democrat joins to confirm.
@ACIN
Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case:
But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Gamble v. United States is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are considered to be "separate sovereigns".
And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy. :mean:
@Csargo
Did you watch any of Kavanaugh in yesterday's hearing? If so, how would you evaluate him were you in a match of Mafia?
No, I only got to watch Dr. Ford's testimony unfortunately, because I had to go to class before Kavanaugh was questioned and couldn't continue watching. Hopefully, I'll get to do so today at some point if I can get to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't understand why it was left to the Senate committee to determine the validity of this woman's statements instead of trained professionals doing so. A proper investigation, interviews, etc. would have been the proper course of action from my perspective. I would have imagined that would be in the power of Senate members to request/order, or am I wrong in that assumption?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csargo
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Because they wanted to limit testimony. Imagine there was a third person in the room with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Wouldn't it have been more comfortable for Democrats not to have the third person subpoenaed?Quote:
I don't understand why it was left to the Senate committee to determine the validity of this woman's statements instead of trained professionals doing so. A proper investigation, interviews, etc. would have been the proper course of action from my perspective. I would have imagined that would be in the power of Senate members to request/order, or am I wrong in that assumption?
Trump would have to approve any FBI investigation.
Speak of the devil, he just did. :shocked:
Not sure why SCOTUS took up this case. Isn't the separate sovereign doctrine really just saying that the federal government and state are two different parties? Double jeopardy is in place to prevent the government from re-trials as punishment or brute force their way into winning. This does not seem to be the case here, he will at most face two trials for this crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified specifically to give states sovereign immunity, so how could we not interpret the constitution in its federalized structure as promoting separate sovereign doctrine?
5th Amendment:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Quote:
[...] nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
In 1969 the double jeopardy proscription was incorporated to the states.
If there is no double jeopardy for federal crimes, and no double jeopardy for state crimes, and the latter follows from the former (setting aside that most state constitutions already included some version of this), then substantive dual trial for the same offense (e.g. falsifying tax returns) once under state court and once under federal seems to be unconstitutional. The "dual sovereignty" loophole would truly be a loophole if it refers to a specious sovereignty that hardly exists even on paper, if there was no precedent for it in the originating English law, and if the actual text of the amendment to the Constitution says nothing about states or sovereigns.
I use the example of tax crime because the underlying offense is literally identical. Much of the information the taxpayer includes in their local, state, and federal returns is overlapping. Indeed, if your state or municipality wants more information from you they will often ask for your federal returns. I believe in some states it is required by default. Unless if for some reason you lie on only one set of returns, but you would be caught instantly, so in practice tax laws are violated simultaneously.
The 11th Amendment has little relevance as it pertains to the immunity of states from civil suit by individuals outside that state, not criminal prosecution of individuals by a state.
Even the ACLU and Cato are tag-teaming to have the exception struck down.
ACIN is correct as to the implications of the 11th amendment vis-à-vis sovereignty. Though the strict use of the amendment is limited, it rests on the basis that the states are sovereign entities of themselves -- united and subordinate to the federal union for specific delineated purposes but not inherently subordinate in all matters to the federal union -- which was the original understanding common among the majority of the founders.
When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?
Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?
Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.
What does it mean for state sovereignty that the 5th Amendment has been incorporated to the states, as have many other amendments been? What does it mean for "dual sovereignty" if this doctrine was established prior to incorporation of federal Constitution to states, including the critical 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection clause? What does it mean for the concept of jurisdiction that it is possible to commit a federal offense in any state or territory of the United States, but not vice versa? What does it mean if the ACLU is correct that the old common law of Britain had no exception for "separate sovereigns" despite Britain being a union of kingdoms? That states have sovereignty to enact and enforce their own laws distinct from the federal government does not obviate the question of the 5th Amendment, which refers to rights of individuals and not states. The question we've suddenly begun debating is merely the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Is it consistent with the Double Jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution for a defendant to be punished separately in state and federal court on a single equivalent charge for a single aspect of a single act or event?
You're talking about something entirely different here: counts of a single crime. I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the Double Jeopardy clause. Double jeopardy is when a defendant is charged, tried, and or convicted and sentenced doubly. Doubly here means "for the same underlying act". For example, if it were the case that "murder" were a federal offense as well as a state one, it would be possible for a defendant to a single murder charge to stand in state court, be found not guilty of murder, then consecutively stand in federal court. Why would this not violate the 5th Amendment? This lawyer baldly asserts that just such a case of state murder vs. federal murder may be consecutively prosecuted because "[d]ouble jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time", yet in the situation described we see that the jurisdictions are overlapping, not discrete. In fact I struggle to think of a situation where jurisdictions do not overlap, except Washington DC, US territories, and overseas military establishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
A single-domain example of how the courts have ruled on double jeopardy would be on the distinction between drug possession and "possession with intent to sell". I don't know how widespread this is, but in Florida convictions involving both were struck down as contrary to the Double Jeopardy clause. Because the underlying offense - possession - is the same for both charges.
AFAIK almost all drug offenses can be both state and federal. As noted above, the federal jurisdiction stretches completely over all states. It really does appear contrary to the 5th Amendment if the state can try you for possession, punish you, and then the federal government can turn around and try you for that exact same possession.
Here's the Cato amicus to look through, and a joint one with the ACLU.
ACIN, I fear you may be advancing a 19th-century concept of "states' rights" that is no longer valid (and arguably never was), one that was also used by SCOTUS (e.g. Lochner) to negate the federal government's enforcement of the 14th Amendment (except on behalf of business).
While Trump is touting this as the best agreement since sliced bread :rolleyes:, it would appear that the newly reworked deal on North American trade has made improvements for the American economy without unduly harming our neighbors. Of course, it could still backfire with automakers sending all the manufacturing to high-education low wage sties like China etc.
A real breakthrough!Quote:
Nafta required automakers to produce 62.5 percent of a vehicle’s content in North America to qualify for zero tariffs. The new agreement raises that threshold, over time, to 75 percent.
Doesn't sound like this would benefit many on the continent, if the factories just leave the continent. Why not rules that actually rein in big business?Quote:
For the first time, the new agreement also mandates that an escalating percentage of parts for any tariff-free vehicle — topping out at 40 percent in 2023 — must come from a so-called “high wage” factory. The agreement says those factories must pay a minimum of $16 an hour in average salaries for production workers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/cana...-industry.htmlQuote:
Perhaps the biggest sticking point in negotiations over the last month was the issue of Canada’s protection of its dairy market, including limits on imported dairy products from the United States and government support that gives Canadian products an advantage on international markets against American ones.
“Dairy was a deal breaker,” Mr. Trump said on Monday.
The new agreement gives the United States victories on both fronts. It gradually opens the Canadian market to more exported American dairy products, including “fluid milk, cream, butter, skim milk powder, cheese and other dairy products.” Canada agreed to eliminate a program that helps Canadian sellers of certain milk products, at home and abroad.
Removal of the dairy Class 7 in Canada, which was only created after Trump's inauguration, and covers the following products: milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula. Access to 3.6% of the Canadian dairy market. About as much as TPP would have granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNBC
This is the great re-negotiation?
It's pretty much just NAFTA with a new name and worse bilateral relations in the long-term. Will this even be approved by Congress, let alone Canada and Mexico?
Without looking deeper, the first sounds good, second sounds neutral, and the third has always been overwhelmingly bad. The US-driven international copyright/patent/trademark regime needs to come down.Quote:
Among the small-but-significant items in the new agreement are a measure to push Mexico to make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions, steps to allow American financial services companies better access to Canadian and Mexican markets and a provision to extend the intellectual property protections of American pharmaceutical companies selling prescription drugs in Canada.
Lol
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/...s-all-branding
"But [Trump] has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up."
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.
...
Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.
Use real-estate salesmen? Telemarketer from hell? Most whores are more ethical?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.
I'm not trying to defend him, but when was the last politician who didn't claim victory at all costs? Nixon's Cambodia farce to George W's "Mission Accomplished"?
Democracies force politicians into these short term grabs for publicity, and unsurprisingly those best at it do the best. Many countries are only insulated from this by the ability of the political parties to restrict choice using various mechanisms. Open primaries gave Trump a chance in a way that just can't happen in (for example) the UK. We can only have as a leader whoever has managed to climb to the top of one of the two greasy poles.
~:smoking:
It is typical for politicians to take credit for perceived positive indicators and disclaim perceived negative indicators, but the Trump formula is:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
1. Manufacture a political crisis internally motivated by expansive and antagonistic rhetoric
2. Undermine his own government and country with seemingly no coherent goal other than self-aggrandizement before his followers
3. Cease further aggravations and declare the degraded status quo a revolutionary victory
That's, you know... stupid-Orwellian. 'We've always been at war with Oceania. In fact, I just single-handedly defeated the foul Oceanians! Also, all praise to our new allies in the fight against Oceania: Sea World.'
I'm sure Trump can't be the only leader in world history to have acted according to the formula I ventured, but I can't think of any examples. Got any?
Mugabe's Zimbabwe? :shrug:
We both know the Democrats won't put up a centrist. They've been sprinting left ever since Bernie nearly took the nomination out from under Hillary. Socialism is cool now- it's what all the kids are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad. The biggest thing I'd criticize him* for is not doing more to reign in spending, but sadly I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.
*I refer to Trump's policies, but of course, I mean his administration's policies. I don't really think he personally has much interest in any policy specifics beyond a couple hobby horses.
So the "FBI investigation" into Kavanaugh was a canard that didn't interview anyone or collect any information. It was all a cover. Looks like they were astute who estimated that Republicans wouldn't ride Kavanaugh to the brink just to pull back at the final moment.
My fixed and final prediction: Kavanaugh confirmed 51-49 - all Republicans confirm except Murkowski; all Democrats reject except Manchin.
At this point, Avenatti would be a centrist candidate. The only socialist/New Dealer with a ghost of a chance at winning the Democratic nomination in 2020 is Sanders himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well, yes. Trump is the Republican Party, and the party is Trump.Quote:
Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad.
Anyone who has been waiting on the Republican Party to cut spending any time in the past few generations has already bought all the bridges they could ever need.Quote:
I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.
Kavanaugh confirmed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_...omination#Vote
Quote:
On October 5, the Senate voted 51-49 for cloture, advancing the nomination to a final floor vote on October 6. The vote was almost entirely along party lines, with Democrat Joe Manchin voting yes and Republican Lisa Murkowski voting no.[109][110]
:daisy: YOUQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
:daisy: YOU
I GOT IT RIGHT :smug: :smug: :smug:
But it came down to Manchin, the D - West Virginia Senator, to cast the deciding vote? When one Republican Senator was absent and could not vote? Manchin ostensibly values a few more years in office above a permanent degradation of the SCOTUS such that the radicals can cement their case for its effective dissolution as an institution?
Can we process the Blue Dogs for glue yet?
The final tally was clearly well known by leadership in advance, or a certain Senator's daughter's wedding would have been delayed a few hours.
You did, Monty, more or less precisely predict the final vote.
Murkowski "paired" with that Senator (voted Present), and Manchin and Collins had declared within the past day, so the outcome was known by Friday afternoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Well, it was a remedial prediction in truth.
I posted before Manchin declared for Kavanaugh, but it was at the very endgame after the FBI investigation came out and Flake and Collins made their dispositive noises. If you then have every article on the subject noting separately that Manchin is the expected swing Democrat, and that Murkowski is the most precarious Republican, it doesn't take uncommon erudition to sum 1 and 1 together.
It does always feel great to make the right call, though.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
There is a small part of me that wishes that the vote had come down to a 50-50, and then Pence then voted "No."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
NOT because of any great qualms I have with Kavanaugh as a jurist (had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected, but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far). But because it would have split the GOP in half and wrecked its current form. I am increasingly of a mind that that must be (in some form) a needful step to moving towards a better conservative party for the USA.