LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:25 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:22 pm . I'm just not sure how to change the system, which really is what is needed.

Partisans need to hold the people they voted for accountable. That's the only way.

So Dems should have, for example, lost their minds and demanded firings for the IRS scandal you mentioned.

Oh, and as a Syracuse fan? Thanks for lending us that Scanlon kid.

This is the second really great post of yours today. Very astute. And makes me think.

Except for that last line.

The White House counsel's letter to the Speaker and Chairs of the Committees:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... hment.html

I am not sure there is a single soundly reasoned statement in this letter.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:22 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:15 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:00 pm I'm just doing the lawyer thing.

And that's fine.

I'm just doing the "citizen thing". You are giving the green light to all future politicians/Presidents to use the power of their office to use the government to go after political enemies.

One thing I've learned, is that Politicians notice when citizens tell them that "this corrupt act is ok by us".

Caveat emptor. Can't say later that you weren't warned.

I get it. I understand the concern. I just think corruption, to whatever degree, has unfortunately been done by most if not all, perhaps not as openly, using back channels and 3rd parties unlike this guy, nor certainly in as charged an atmosphere as today. None of it is okay; zero. I'm just not sure how to change the system, which really is what is needed. Until then, I decide at the ballot box. And if it's E Warren that holds the flag by the D's in 2020, count me out. I trust you understand.

whether others have transgressed more secretly or not, when it's brought into public scrutiny there is no option but the firmest rebuke.

Unless you want more, and worse.

I'm voting for the proverbial 'piece of wood', as the only rebuke I have to offer...even if it's Warren.

MD you better start throwing you dough behind Mayor Pete if your going that route bc right now it sure looks like Warren is coming out of that side.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:03 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:25 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:22 pm . I'm just not sure how to change the system, which really is what is needed.

Partisans need to hold the people they voted for accountable. That's the only way.

So Dems should have, for example, lost their minds and demanded firings for the IRS scandal you mentioned.

Oh, and as a Syracuse fan? Thanks for lending us that Scanlon kid.

This is the second really great post of yours today. Very astute. And makes me think.

Except for that last line.

We'll return him in June, with some minor bumps and bruises. Promise.

SMAIN wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:02 pm Trump's approval rating is higher then Obama's at this point in time....

Actually, Trump's approval rating at this point is the lowest of any of our last 12 Presidents, and more importantly his disapproval rating is much higher than any of the past 12 Presidents.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/

Lindsey Graham and Laurence Tribe appearing on Lawrence O'Donnell last night:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/wat ... 0890565531

It is kind of fun to see Graham's dirty hypocrisy in so clear a light.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny- ... story.html

What Impeachment Should Look Like. The writer is a Republican lawyer.

Frampton Comes Alive!


Peter Frampton
@peterframpton

What is the point of a subpoena if, when handed it, you can just say “No” and we go, “Ok, sorry to bother you”. Raid the f_ckers and get what we are asking for!

3:27 PM · Oct 8, 2019

There is no doubt an investigation needs to take place. But it needs to take place in THE OPEN for the people to see.

I am tired of things getting done in smoke-filled rooms. And I think a lot of reasonable (eg folks not blinded by r's and d's) think the same way.

FarfromG likes Pete. I am hoping, beyond rationality, that Tulsi gets a shot.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:55 pm


Wahoomurf raises the one issue which, if I hated Trump (I don't), I would use as means to disqualify; I firmly believe that if you hold any elected office in America, (Including school committees, dog catcher, arborist, parksNrec, selectperson, sheriff, judge, library board, planning board, FinCom, ole burial grounds keeper, town clerk, etc, etc, etc. ???????)you should be required to lay out your tax returns for the world to see (with some allowable blacklining such as SSN# etc...). Including ALL candidates on the ballot? Or just the winners? )I do not abide by not knowing if a POTUS owes money to anyone, bank individual foreign or domestic. We need to know those facts. Straight up. We ALL knew that Obama owed money and had nefarious financial dealings with a Felon (Tony Rez-romKo )

He is clearly hiding something. I think you will see them soon.

As required by law: Perhaps not detailed enough?

https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/financial-disclosures


(I'd like to see a law passed that mandates the release of tax returns for any person who seeks any elected office in America)

It's an interesting dilemma, and if applied to ALL elected positions, it may reduce the field. To nothing. Privacy issues. Who hangs on to the the IRS tax forms? People like Strolzz (fbi) and his galpal? Rudy G? WashPost? Hey, why not, amazingON, or is it googlo, gets billions in CIA and other deep state stuff, what could go wrong with them Also what about appointed keeping the tax forms undder lock in key.? ( I served on a committee who's chairman was appointed, not elected. Certainly several conflicts of interest when chairmans friends got fund/project approval. )

All the surrounding states of New Hampshire are making tax dollars from Pot consumerables. Why isn't it happening in New Hampshire? Perhaps the fact that the Governor (family he'll claim, like it matters ) owns methadone clinics, and THC use is an OUTSTANDING reforming drug for opiate users.

To end, not as easy to make PRIVATE tax forms mandatory. I mean, no one on this website seems to care about which member of congress owns which stock. (Sen. Feinstein's husband.......stuff like that too ) Why the hassle?

I would certainly support a much easier path to having MANDATORY bi-annual audits for all members of Congress. And add legal language to call foul to just "not voting" on a bill that funds investments that you (collective) own, as to suggest your "no vote" eliminates conflict of interst

Someone explain to me why politicians have lower standards that stock brokers? Politicians above a certain level should have to put all their net worth in mutual funds etc...

Wonder why that isn't the case.... oh that's right because they make the rules and whats good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:32 am Someone explain to me why politicians have lower standards that stock brokers? Politicians above a certain level should have to put all their net worth in mutual funds etc...

Wonder why that isn't the case.... oh that's right because they make the rules and whats good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

+1

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:32 am Someone explain to me why politicians have lower standards that stock brokers? Politicians above a certain level should have to put all their net worth in mutual funds etc...

Wonder why that isn't the case.... oh that's right because they make the rules and whats good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

Fair point.
Vote for reformers.

some thoughts on impeachment:

I mean, no one on this website seems to care about which member of congress owns which stock.

More b.s.....not even close to fact.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:29 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:55 pm


Wahoomurf raises the one issue which, if I hated Trump (I don't), I would use as means to disqualify; I firmly believe that if you hold any elected office in America, (Including school committees, dog catcher, arborist, parksNrec, selectperson, sheriff, judge, library board, planning board, FinCom, ole burial grounds keeper, town clerk, etc, etc, etc. ???????)you should be required to lay out your tax returns for the world to see (with some allowable blacklining such as SSN# etc...). Including ALL candidates on the ballot? Or just the winners? )I do not abide by not knowing if a POTUS owes money to anyone, bank individual foreign or domestic. We need to know those facts. Straight up. We ALL knew that Obama owed money and had nefarious financial dealings with a Felon (Tony Rez-romKo )

He is clearly hiding something. I think you will see them soon.

As required by law: Perhaps not detailed enough?

https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/financial-disclosures


(I'd like to see a law passed that mandates the release of tax returns for any person who seeks any elected office in America)

It's an interesting dilemma, and if applied to ALL elected positions, it may reduce the field. To nothing. Privacy issues. Who hangs on to the the IRS tax forms? People like Strolzz (fbi) and his galpal? Rudy G? WashPost? Hey, why not, amazingON, or is it googlo, gets billions in CIA and other deep state stuff, what could go wrong with them Also what about appointed keeping the tax forms undder lock in key.? ( I served on a committee who's chairman was appointed, not elected. Certainly several conflicts of interest when chairmans friends got fund/project approval. )

All the surrounding states of New Hampshire are making tax dollars from Pot consumerables. Why isn't it happening in New Hampshire? Perhaps the fact that the Governor (family he'll claim, like it matters ) owns methadone clinics, and THC use is an OUTSTANDING reforming drug for opiate users.

To end, not as easy to make PRIVATE tax forms mandatory. I mean, no one on this website seems to care about which member of congress owns which stock. (Sen. Feinstein's husband.......stuff like that too ) Why the hassle?

I would certainly support a much easier path to having MANDATORY bi-annual audits for all members of Congress. And add legal language to call foul to just "not voting" on a bill that funds investments that you (collective) own, as to suggest your "no vote" eliminates conflict of interst

Interesting that WH officials are not required to sign an ethics agreement.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:38 am

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:32 am Someone explain to me why politicians have lower standards that stock brokers? Politicians above a certain level should have to put all their net worth in mutual funds etc...

Wonder why that isn't the case.... oh that's right because they make the rules and whats good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

Fair point.
Vote for reformers.

When running for office EVERYBODY claims to be a reformer...

Bingo.

"Drain the swamp" ring a bell anywhere?

How's that working out?

The White House counsel's letter to the Speaker and Chairs of the Committees. I am not sure there is a single soundly reasoned statement in this letter.

Not that it much matters, since this is a political document and a political fight. But the WH legal arguments on this are beyond weak. Basically legal gas-lighting.

It is true that there was a House vote in the Nixon and Clinton cases. But that vote wasn't required by the Constitution or due process. It was required under the then applicable House rules. In prior times, the House rules required a vote in order to give House committee chairs the subpoena power. Under long since changed House rules, the committee's now have standing power to issue subpoenas. Which is how/why the Dem-controlled committees have obviously been issuing subpoenas for some time already.

Note that in the Nixon case, House Judiciary investigated and gathered evidence for months before taking the impeachment inquiry vote. House Judiciary also got (thanks to Judge Sirica) the Watergate road map delivered to it from the special prosecutor's grand jury. In Clinton's case, Ken Starr had spent many years investigating before delivering his voluminous report (complete and unredacted) directly to the House. Nixon and Clinton had little input or due process in that part of their proceedings.

The House's current proceedings are most similar to a grand jury investigation process. Which makes total sense since there has not been any prior grand jury or special counsel/prosecutor process with respect to the Uke situation that the House can piggyback on. Grand jury investigations are always one-sided proceedings run by the prosecutor, are conducted in secret, and have little due process requirements (for example, GJ witnesses have no right to counsel).

Quite understandable that the Dems don't want their Uke investigation mucked up by having Jim Jordan bringing in Giuliani to testify about Biden conspiracy theories. Or letting Matt Gaetz subpoena Hunter Biden for questioning.

Trump's due process would primarily come in the impeachment trial in the Senate. Which is very similar to how it works in criminal courts. You have few rights at the grand jury/indictment stage, then you have full due process rights once you move to the conviction/trial stage.

While Trump's legal position is laughably weak, the delay and PR campaign that it enables has obviously worked for him before. The Dem challenge is to keep enough new evidence and voluntary witnesses flowing to keep the story alive and keep moving public opinion (which is the real jury) in their direction.