Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

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.


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.

I can't imagine why the Republicans are still pushing him through.

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.

(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)

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."

Bad advice, that's why his supporters love him. "He tells it like it is!"

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.

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.

[drone]

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.

(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)

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...

[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?

But basically this -

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...

- would be irrelevant if the Republicans have privately moved fully beyond the concept of normal electoral politics.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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...

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.

[Montmorency]

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:

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".

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...

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy.


@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?

[Csargo]

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...

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy.


@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.

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?

[Montmorency]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In fact, let me edit this out of courtesy: conduct of final scum in D5 of Representative Democracy

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?

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?

Trump would have to approve any FBI investigation.

Speak of the devil, he just did.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@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...

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy.

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.

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?

[Montmorency]

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.

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:

[...] 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.