JUST the NY "Hush Money"/Election Interference Trial

[tech37]

Edit for Tech: the economy isn’t the stock market. Really? I didn't know that. The “germ” has had an major impact but the economy wasn’t doing all that well overall if one really dig deep under this administration. And the converse argument is that it took $3 trillion before the germ to keep it from sucking a**. I said the economy was "solid" I didn't say it was gangbusters. If you don't agree with "solid', fine, that's your opinion.

Define solid. Unemployment rate, any practitioner will tell you isn’t a useful indicator and hasn’t been in 30+ yrs. nobody believes in NAIRU anymore. Without some reasonable definition it’s an empty term and blows up this whole notion your homeboy has steered a “solid” economy. Would you define the job number last two months as “the White House creates 7mm+ new jobs” the wya he did this morning?

You sure like to tell people “well, that’s like your opinion, man...” every time you disagree and then push the definition of fact a good bit like some entertainer with Cirque Du Soleil. Or, simply agreeing to disagree

[old salt]

Speaking of accountability after the fact:

Oklahoma man shoots woman for stealing his Nazi Flag.

How dare he?

How dare she?

Discuss.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-man ... -nazi-flag

.. ...this would make for a great storyline if Justified was still on the air.
Maybe Law & Order will take a road trip to OK.
This is Elmore Leonard or Coen Bros material.

[seacoaster]

Edit for Tech: the economy isn’t the stock market. Really? I didn't know that. The “germ” has had an major impact but the economy wasn’t doing all that well overall if one really dig deep under this administration. And the converse argument is that it took $3 trillion before the germ to keep it from sucking a**. I said the economy was "solid" I didn't say it was gangbusters. If you don't agree with "solid', fine, that's your opinion.

Define solid. Unemployment rate, any practitioner will tell you isn’t a useful indicator and hasn’t been in 30+ yrs. nobody believes in NAIRU anymore. Without some reasonable definition it’s an empty term and blows up this whole notion your homeboy has steered a “solid” economy. Would you define the job number last two months as “the White House creates 7mm+ new jobs” the wya he did this morning?

You sure like to tell people “well, that’s like your opinion, man...” every time you disagree and then push the definition of fact a good bit like some entertainer with Cirque Du Soleil.

Yeah, the three responses to any contrary facts with this guy are: "well, that's your opinion;" "you need help, man;" and "TDS" "resistance" nonsense. Pretend moderate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/worl ... e=Homepage

Facts: "The United States set a single-day case record for the fifth time in a little over a week. Heading into the Fourth of July holiday, officials warn residents to stay home.

RIGHT NOW: Florida reported more than 10,100 new coronavirus cases, its record for a single day. The state also reported the death of an 11-year-old boy in Miami-Dade County, the youngest fatality attributed to Covid-19 in the state."

No. Federal. Coordination. Or. Response.

Tulsa Rally. No mask because of the orange face-paint.

128,000 facts.

[Farfromgeneva]

Edit for Tech: the economy isn’t the stock market. Really? I didn't know that. The “germ” has had an major impact but the economy wasn’t doing all that well overall if one really dig deep under this administration. And the converse argument is that it took $3 trillion before the germ to keep it from sucking a**. I said the economy was "solid" I didn't say it was gangbusters. If you don't agree with "solid', fine, that's your opinion.

Define solid. Unemployment rate, any practitioner will tell you isn’t a useful indicator and hasn’t been in 30+ yrs. nobody believes in NAIRU anymore. Without some reasonable definition it’s an empty term and blows up this whole notion your homeboy has steered a “solid” economy. Would you define the job number last two months as “the White House creates 7mm+ new jobs” the wya he did this morning?

You sure like to tell people “well, that’s like your opinion, man...” every time you disagree and then push the definition of fact a good bit like some entertainer with Cirque Du Soleil. Or, simply agreeing to disagree

Well in order to do so at least one would have to define what a “solid” economy means. You haven’t done that, I’ve suggested that the variables most people who play in this sandbox utilize would say it’s not solid, fragile is what most would’ve said in Jan 2020 or Q4 2019 when new issuance froze up in credit markets (BB CLO bonds were getting throwaway bids of L + 1100 for example meaning new syndicated loans couldn’t get done since 70% of syndicate loan market was getting soaked up by CLO asset managers which in turn meant access to the syndicated loan market had broken down). The Fed can’t get to 2% inflation despite fiscal policy as taken credit for by the White House, blew $3Tn and evening before Covid in early March had to issue record amounts to treasury debt to simply bridge fund the following few months (again before COVID was an economic issue).

So I can’t agree to disagree if you haven’t defined what solid is. It’s just some amorphous floating word you used to state boldly that Trump was moonwalking to another term. It makes the argument specious at best. (Where I’d agree is that his prospects looked better in Jan but to assume things wouldn’t change without Covid is beyond bold if one understood the fragility of our economic footing again).

Now we’ve got the treasury lending to five airlines, taking a stake in a top three trucking company, buying corporate bonds. There’s nothing solid about these things happening. Overnight funding froze up and was a major concern last Sept. supply chain finance is drying up-see “greensill Capital” + withdrawals + “credit Suisse” + SoftBank.

[kramerica.inc]

Speaking of accountability after the fact:

Oklahoma man shoots woman for stealing his Nazi Flag.

How dare he?

How dare she?

Discuss.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-man ... -nazi-flag

.. ...this would make for a great storyline if Justified was still on the air.
Maybe Law & Order will take a road trip to OK.
This is Elmore Leonard or Coen Bros material.

It totally is.
I knew the answer I’d get from a few around here.

[dislaxxic]

John Roberts shouldn’t preside over impeachment trial. Nor should Kamala Harris

If Roberts does indeed recuse himself, it will be up to Harris to make the next critical decision. Except for the impeachment of presidents, the Constitution designates the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate on all matters, and it explicitly grants Harris the authority to break all tie votes. But in contrast to Roberts, Harris has gained her position as a result of the very election that Trump is condemning as “rigged.” It would be even more inappropriate for the evidence submitted by Trump’s lawyers to be judged by a triumphant member of the Biden team. Whenever she disqualified their so-called evidence as fact-free, it will become that much harder for Biden to succeed in “bringing all Americans together.”

Senate rules provide a way out of Harris’s dilemma. To understand why, keep in mind that the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of “all civil officers of the United States,” not only sitting presidents. When federal judges and other officials have been impeached by the House, moreover, the Senate doesn’t do all the fact-finding on its own. Instead, after hearing the House managers and defense lawyers give an initial presentation of their positions, the full Senate delegates the tough work of fact-finding to a special committee. In this case, the Judiciary Committee is the best group to take on the job. The committee’s 22 seats will probably be divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, and its membership includes outstanding lawyers who are leading moderates from both parties. There is every reason to expect them to take their fact-finding responsibilities seriously and reach a bipartisan judgment on Trump’s culpability. Even if they can’t reach consensus, and come up with rival reports reaching opposing conclusions, each side will have devoted a lot of time and energy into making their case persuasive to a broad public.

..

[njbill]

My understanding is that the question has been put to Roberts. The Senate is awaiting his response. While I understand the literal argument from the text of the constitution that since T**** is no longer president, the chief justice should not preside, I think the better reading is that since T**** was president when he was impeached, the trial should be considered to be an impeachment trial of the president. Accordingly, Roberts should preside.

The author of this piece uses the word “recusal.” That’s technically incorrect. The only scenario in which that word would be properly used here is if Roberts determined the constitution required him to preside over the trial and then if he recused himself for whatever reason. (If Roberts decides the constitution does not require him to preside, then that wouldn’t technically be considered a recusal.)

If Roberts decides the constitution requires him to preside, he will do so. There are no reasons for him to recuse, such as, for example, if the president were his brother or something like that.

I don’t think Robert would consider that the fact that there possibly could be judicial challenges to whatever the Senate does to be sufficient grounds for him to recuse.

And if he did recuse, I don’t think it’s crystal clear that Harris automatically steps in. I’m sure the supreme court has procedures for someone to serve as acting chief justice if Roberts is unavailable. Perhaps that person would then preside.

There are a lot of lurking legal issues associated with this impeachment. Assume the senate convicts T****. Does the Senate have the constitutional right to convict a former president? I think the answer is yes, but T**** could, in theory, challenge the Senate’s jurisdiction in court. That would present another issue as to whether courts would have jurisdiction to review the Senate’s conviction.

Haven’t gone back to review the 1993 Nixon v. U.S. case, but I’m pretty sure the holding there was simply that the courts did not have jurisdiction to act as an appellate court over an impeachment trial. The issue of whether the Senate has jurisdiction to convict a former president arguably is not that and perhaps could be reviewed by courts. Interesting constitutional questions that have never been decided.

Similarly, if the senate were to vote to disqualify T**** from holding future office, I could certainly see him challenging that. Such a decision would take money out of his pocket in several ways. Most basically, he wouldn’t get a pension or an office budget. He would lose Secret Service protection and would need to pay for private security out of his own pocket. Also, it would prevent him from continuing his phony fundraising efforts toward a possible 2024 run.

This last scenario is probably the one that would most likely end up in court.

[old salt]

John Roberts shouldn’t preside over impeachment trial. Nor should Kamala Harris

If Roberts does indeed recuse himself, it will be up to Harris to make the next critical decision. Except for the impeachment of presidents, the Constitution designates the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate on all matters, and it explicitly grants Harris the authority to break all tie votes. But in contrast to Roberts, Harris has gained her position as a result of the very election that Trump is condemning as “rigged.” It would be even more inappropriate for the evidence submitted by Trump’s lawyers to be judged by a triumphant member of the Biden team. Whenever she disqualified their so-called evidence as fact-free, it will become that much harder for Biden to succeed in “bringing all Americans together.”

Senate rules provide a way out of Harris’s dilemma. To understand why, keep in mind that the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of “all civil officers of the United States,” not only sitting presidents. When federal judges and other officials have been impeached by the House, moreover, the Senate doesn’t do all the fact-finding on its own. Instead, after hearing the House managers and defense lawyers give an initial presentation of their positions, the full Senate delegates the tough work of fact-finding to a special committee. In this case, the Judiciary Committee is the best group to take on the job. The committee’s 22 seats will probably be divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, and its membership includes outstanding lawyers who are leading moderates from both parties. There is every reason to expect them to take their fact-finding responsibilities seriously and reach a bipartisan judgment on Trump’s culpability. Even if they can’t reach consensus, and come up with rival reports reaching opposing conclusions, each side will have devoted a lot of time and energy into making their case persuasive to a broad public.

..

Maybe Chuck can get Judge Judy.

[njbill]

Also, if for some reason (other than recusal) Roberts does not preside, Harris should. Those are the rules. The reason the Constitution provides that the vice president does not preside over the impeachment trial of a sitting president is because he or she has an obvious conflict of interest. Not so here. Regardless of how the Senate decides the case, Harris is not going to become president.

[dislaxxic]

ZIP-TIE GUY’S RELEASE ON BAIL IS WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST BE PROSECUTED

..

[Brooklyn]

Roberts and a few Republicans such as Moscow Mitch and those pukes who endorsed the insurrection should recuse themselves from the trial because of their bias. And let me remind everyone that tRUMP endorsed capital punishment for the Central Park Five even though they were proven innocent. On that basis that particular remedy is ideal in this case.

[MDlaxfan76]

Roberts and a few Republicans such as Moscow Mitch and those pukes who endorsed the insurrection should recuse themselves from the trial because of their bias. And let me remind everyone that tRUMP endorsed capital punishment for the Central Park Five even though they were proven innocent. On that basis that particular remedy is ideal in this case.

You lost me on this one...hard to even follow your logic.

[Brooklyn]

Roberts and a few Republicans such as Moscow Mitch and those pukes who endorsed the insurrection should recuse themselves from the trial because of their bias. And let me remind everyone that tRUMP endorsed capital punishment for the Central Park Five even though they were proven innocent. On that basis that particular remedy is ideal in this case.

You lost me on this one...hard to even follow your logic.

Didn't you catch these headlines: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... z-n1255228

These people are in the Senate, they endorsed tRUMP's criminal conduct openly, and now B!tch McConnell is trying to maneuver the Senate from its proceedings against traitor tRUMP. Obviously they are unqualified to participate in the trial because they had a hand in promoting the insurrection, the same one that resulted in the death of five people and destruction of government property. If anything, Hawley and Cruz should also be impeached and stand trial just like traitor tRUMP.

[MDlaxfan76]

Roberts and a few Republicans such as Moscow Mitch and those pukes who endorsed the insurrection should recuse themselves from the trial because of their bias. And let me remind everyone that tRUMP endorsed capital punishment for the Central Park Five even though they were proven innocent. On that basis that particular remedy is ideal in this case.

You lost me on this one...hard to even follow your logic.

Didn't you catch these headlines: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... z-n1255228

These people are in the Senate, they endorsed tRUMP's criminal conduct openly, and now B!tch McConnell is trying to maneuver the Senate from its proceedings against traitor tRUMP. Obviously they are unqualified to participate in the trial because they had a hand in promoting the insurrection, the same one that resulted in the death of five people and destruction of government property. If anything, Hawley and Cruz should also be impeached and stand trial just like traitor tRUMP.

I feel very strongly about Hawley and Cruz and think they should be disciplined significantly by McConnell at a minimum, and IMO expelled from Senate. I also think they should face criminal prosecution.

I don't know that we can say the same for McConnell, he opposed the objections, thus where you lost me...I see McConnell condemning Trump's actions...will he support conviction? I sure hope so, but I don't see any basis for him to 'recuse' himself. This delay may ultimately help get to conviction, build the case, corporate donors weigh in, etc. It also removes the notion that Trump hasn't had an opportunity to prepare the defense...a bogus excuse, but remove the excuses.

[Brooklyn]

I feel very strongly about Hawley and Cruz and think they should be disciplined significantly by McConnell at a minimum, and IMO expelled from Senate. I also think they should face criminal prosecution.

I don't know that we can say the same for McConnell, he opposed the objections, thus where you lost me...I see McConnell condemning Trump's actions...will he support conviction? I sure hope so, but I don't see any basis for him to 'recuse' himself. This delay may ultimately help get to conviction, build the case, corporate donors weigh in, etc. It also removes the notion that Trump hasn't had an opportunity to prepare the defense...a bogus excuse, but remove the excuses.

- Hawley and Cruz -

Ok, my fault for initially failing to specifically identify the culprits. Traitor tRUMP will go on trial for instigating an insurrection. But he will be tried by at least 2 people who committed the same crime - how can 2 conspirators be absolved from a crime they committed and now sit in judgment of someone who is equally culpable? RIDICULOUS!

In the name of justice, all members of a court need to be impartial. Clearly, B!tch McConnell is not. B!tch has tipped his hand and demonstrated that he is not impartial as he is seeking to maneuver the proceedings to give tRUMP time in order to allow social disgust with his evils to cool down. We need swift justice today. We won't get that with McConnell.

[MDlaxfan76]

I feel very strongly about Hawley and Cruz and think they should be disciplined significantly by McConnell at a minimum, and IMO expelled from Senate. I also think they should face criminal prosecution.

I don't know that we can say the same for McConnell, he opposed the objections, thus where you lost me...I see McConnell condemning Trump's actions...will he support conviction? I sure hope so, but I don't see any basis for him to 'recuse' himself. This delay may ultimately help get to conviction, build the case, corporate donors weigh in, etc. It also removes the notion that Trump hasn't had an opportunity to prepare the defense...a bogus excuse, but remove the excuses.

- Hawley and Cruz -

Ok, my fault for initially failing to specifically identify the culprits. Traitor tRUMP will go on trial for instigating an insurrection. But he will be tried by at least 2 people who committed the same crime - how can 2 conspirators be absolved from a crime they committed and now sit in judgment of someone who is equally culpable? RIDICULOUS!

In the name of justice, all members of a court need to be impartial. Clearly, B!tch McConnell is not. B!tch has tipped his hand and demonstrated that he is not impartial as he is seeking to maneuver the proceedings to give tRUMP time in order to allow social disgust with his evils to cool down. We need swift justice today. We won't get that with McConnell.

Certainly it's an issue that some of those sitting in judgment know that a judgment against Trump's action is an indictment of their own.

Impartiality is not actually to be expected in an Impeachment trial, no matter how much lip service may be paid to such. This is why we really shouldn't expect a conviction by the Senate. I remain hopeful that it's possible and will be disappointed in the GOP if they don't contribute to the conviction. But I'm already immensely disappointed.

[Brooklyn]

Certainly it's an issue that some of those sitting in judgment know that a judgment against Trump's action is an indictment of their own.

Impartiality is not actually to be expected in an Impeachment trial, no matter how much lip service may be paid to such. This is why we really shouldn't expect a conviction by the Senate. I remain hopeful that it's possible and will be disappointed in the GOP if they don't contribute to the conviction. But I'm already immensely disappointed.

Mebbe we should remind the Pukies that their party claimed to be the party of principle as well as moral/Christian values. Their Bible requires them to do justice and it demands a life for a life. Five people died because of their crimes. It's time for justice.

[dislaxxic]

PRODUCTIVE WAYS TO HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE



Drain the Swamp.
Have Trump Dead-Enders Approve Charges.
Give Repuwicans What They Think They Want.
Fully Empower Inspectors General
Respect FOIA


...and my own addition: Appoint several Special Councils

..

[kramerica.inc]

Because, why not waste millions more on several special councils?

[MDlaxfan76]

Because, why not waste millions more on several special councils?

are you laughing at the idea (a Trumpist GOP favorite) or the spelling?