All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[numberthirty]

Frankly speaking, this is why she is my favorite candidate in the race. A lot of her proposals are tax-based so she can use the budgetary rule in the Senate to push a lot of these through with 51 votes. That seems to me to be realistic. I also think making education her signature issue out of the gate is gonna fundamentally improve her image on the debate stage.

I know there are questions about her record as a prosecutor. I think she should answer those, but, at the same time, I don’t think they can quite be weaponized in the general like they were in the primary. We’ve had long discussions on this thread about Harris’ office sticking to a California conviction upon appeal. (As I stated, that is the job of the Attorney General’s office—to defend the policies and convictions by the state. Harris also had already stood up against a legally passed proposition against gay marriage and that could’ve cost her her career.) But, the truth is, that Trump has pushed for putting children in cages and making them appear before immigration judges on their lonesome. The moral depravity of that action is clear.

Plus, I don’t think she’ll have to deal with legitimate criticism of her being an “open borders” “socialist”. I think a lot of moderates are still frightened by that language, even if the word “democratic” is in front of it. Her immigration reform plans seem measured and also want to provide for more security along the border.

Overall, out of the leading candidates, I think she’d be the strongest one in the general election while still being left of where Obama was politically. And her policies seem to me to be the most realistic, broad-strokes policies that don’t require nuking the filibuster in the Senate, which can be harmful (as has been discussed).

"She Was Just Doing Her Job..." falls apart once you acknowledge the reality that not even looking into Herbalife is a call that she made.

Even more so when you acknowledge the reality that her husband was working at the law firm that represented Herbalife when she made that call.

Once you plug both of those things into the equation, the "She Was Just Doing Her Job..." bit doesn't really cut it.

There was clearly no issue deciding not to "Just Do The Job..." in other circumstances.

Finally, let's not frame what happened like it was a simple appeal.

A Federal Judge ordered an innocent man's release because his conviction didn't have a leg to stand on. Trying to frame that she used a paperwork issue to keep that innocent man in jail isn't just some garden variety "Appeal" issue.

Trying frame it that way is like saying "Fender Bender..." when the reality was a drunk driver sideswiping someone's car.

[TheDarman]

"She Was Just Doing Her Job..." falls apart once you acknowledge the reality that not even looking into Herbalife is a call that she made.

Even more so when you acknowledge the reality that her husband was working at the law firm that represented Herbalife when she made that call.

Once you plug both of those things into the equation, the "She Was Just Doing Her Job..." bit doesn't really cut it.

There was clearly no issue deciding not to "Just Do The Job..." in other circumstances.

Finally, let's not frame what happened like it was a simple appeal.

A Federal Judge ordered an innocent man's release because his conviction didn't have a leg to stand on. Trying to frame that she used a paperwork issue to keep that innocent man in jail isn't just some garden variety "Appeal" issue.

Trying frame it that way is like saying "Fender Bender..." when the reality was a drunk driver sideswiping someone's car.

The things she didn’t do are a whole lot more concerning to me than the things she did. Because that was her job. Especially when looking at the appeal stuff, it seems you don’t really know what the Attorney General does or want to hold Harris to a different standard. Even upon losing cases, you use legal techniques to defend the state’s decision and choices. Unlike other lawyers or prosecutors, you have to do what the state wants, especially when these cases come across your desk. It’s like people getting upset at Hillary Clinton for getting a rapist off because she was a public defender. You don’t get to pick your cases. And, especially if there are bad arguments for your client’s case, you have very little to pick from for defenses. Do we really want to set the precedent, legally, that the Attorney General’s Office doesn’t have to defend the state’s case when it disagrees with it? That’s rather dangerous.

The other things are technically different because it is a case of her office not being proactive. In this case, her office, under the state’s direction, was reactive. That seems to be the biggest problem with her tenure—they didn’t really go after violators. They were reactionary, defending cases the state had them defend. That’s not good either, certainly. But it isn’t like Harris proactively prevented the guy’s release. He appealed his case and the Attorney General’s Office for the state he was sentenced in was tasked to defend their sentencing, just like any other Attirney General’s Office would be. At that point, the governor (and, in federal cases, the president) would have to direct his administration to act differently. Ultimately, your issue is with the governor.

[numberthirty]

The things she didn’t do are a whole lot more concerning to me than the things she did. Because that was her job. Especially when looking at the appeal stuff, it seems you don’t really know what the Attorney General does or want to hold Harris to a different standard. Even upon losing cases, you use legal techniques to defend the state’s decision and choices. Unlike other lawyers or prosecutors, you have to do what the state wants, especially when these cases come across your desk. It’s like people getting upset at Hillary Clinton for getting a rapist off because she was a public defender. You don’t get to pick your cases. And, especially if there are bad arguments for your client’s case, you have very little to pick from for defenses. Do we really want to set the precedent, legally, that the Attorney General’s Office doesn’t have to defend the state’s case when it disagrees with it? That’s rather dangerous.

The other things are technically different because it is a case of her office not being proactive. In this case, her office, under the state’s direction, was reactive. That seems to be the biggest problem with her tenure—they didn’t really go after violators. They were reactionary, defending cases the state had them defend. That’s not good either, certainly. But it isn’t like Harris proactively prevented the guy’s release. He appealed his case and the Attorney General’s Office for the state he was sentenced in was tasked to defend their sentencing, just like any other Attirney General’s Office would be. At that point, the governor (and, in federal cases, the president) would have to direct his administration to act differently. Ultimately, your issue is with the governor.

Which has zero to do with that keeping a guy in jail based on a paperwork filing technicality after the case was settled by a Federal Judge is not "Defending" anything.

It is keeping an innocent man in jail based on that you could not defend a case that a Federal Judge ruled against because it was about as flimsy as Kleenex.

Trying to create a scenario where that is not proactively working to prevent an innocent man's release makes less than no sense.

[Robotman]

Bill Barr just claimed that the Trump campaign was illegally spied on by the Obama administration in a Senate committee hearing. When Senators from both sides of the aisle asked him to elaborate and give evidence, the A.G. provided none. (Because there isn't any.) Still, this should make it clear that Barr is Trump's "new Roy Cohn". He's trying to spread "deep state" theories that Trump was given the "wire tapps" by Obama.

Oh, and he still hasn't indicated when he'll let anyone else see the Mueller report.

Honestly, whoever is at the FBI that had yet to realize that anyone in Trump's orbit is corrupt and will need to have the whistle blown on them have begun tackling the nearest referee to them to steal said whistles.

His response when questioned about this was a stammering mess. “Well, um, I don’t kn...I mean it could have...yes there may have been spying.”

But this new lie emboldens the moronic QAnon people and shows that Barr is just Trump’s puppet.

[InformationGeek]

Well that's just crazy, and horrifying, and also evil.

At roundtable in Texas, President Trump laments that US troops at the border can't get "a little rough," because "everybody would go crazy ... can’t act like they would normally act -- or like, let’s say, another military from another country would act."

[TheDarman]

Which has zero to do with that keeping a guy in jail based on a paperwork filing technicality after the case was settled by a Federal Judge is not "Defending" anything.

It is keeping an innocent man in jail based on that you could not defend a case that a Federal Judge ruled against because it was about as flimsy as Kleenex.

Trying to create a scenario where that is not proactively working to prevent an innocent man's release makes less than no sense.

Not really. I understand this is a hill you are willing to die on to criticize her. I appreciate that you don’t like this aspect of her and at least you aren’t calling her “black Hillary”, which is something.

All I’ll say is that it will effectively disqualify any Attorneys General or prosecutor from getting your support. Heck, even public defenders would have a hard time meeting these standards. You don’t get to pick which side you come out on (the side being always the side of the state for Attorneys General) and you don’t get to pick the fights that come to you. Unless Harris comes out and says she wanted to keep the guy in jail, actively pushed for his continued incarceration, and was the one pleading the case to continue this agenda after the governor had expressed doubts his state wanted to keep pushing on the issue, I can’t find her culpable for doing her job. It is an open question whether she did whatever else she should’ve with the office. But, in this instance, I don’t see how her hands weren’t tied by the state’s legal precedent and argument.

[numberthirty]

Not really. I understand this is a hill you are willing to die on to criticize her. I appreciate that you don’t like this aspect of her and at least you aren’t calling her “black Hillary”, which is something.

All I’ll say is that it will effectively disqualify any Attorneys General or prosecutor from getting your support. Heck, even public defenders would have a hard time meeting these standards. You don’t get to pick which side you come out on (the side being always the side of the state for Attorneys General) and you don’t get to pick the fights that come to you. Unless Harris comes out and says she wanted to keep the guy in jail, actively pushed for his continued incarceration, and was the one pleading the case to continue this agenda after the governor had expressed doubts his state wanted to keep pushing on the issue, I can’t find her culpable for doing her job. It is an open question whether she did whatever else she should’ve with the office. But, in this instance, I don’t see how her hands weren’t tied by the state’s legal precedent and argument.

Which was no longer an issue once her office had shifted to the technicality of when paperwork had been filed so that they could keep the guy in jail.

There is no scenario where hands were tied there. A Federal Judge had already ruled on that the guy should be released. It's not like they were appealing the ruling past where the order to release him was handed down.

All they were doing was using a paperwork technicality as an excuse not to release someone. Which they were under no obligation to do. Never mind that his eventual release points to that it wasn't even a valid reason to keep him in jail.

There is no scenario where folks should not be calling that out.

[numberthirty]

Never mind that trying to frame that as someone finding one thing to try to go after someone on ignores obvious reality...

https://afropunk.com/2019/01/kamala-...ple-not-crime/

KAMALA HARRIS HAS BEEN TOUGH ON BLACK PEOPLE, NOT CRIME

Kamala even advocated that an innocent Black man named Kevin Cooper, who was a death row inmate and had a trial that was rooted in overt racism and corruption, be executed. She advocated for this even though Kevin had DNA evidence that proved his innocence yet Kamala Harris opposed it until the New York Times exposed the case.

Edit:

Also worth noting about this specific instance(heck, the entire article is worth reading through)...

https://splinternews.com/why-oppose-...man-1832816713

Why Oppose a DNA Test That Could Free an Innocent Man?

Since Kristoff’s 2018 column, she has openly advocated for full DNA testing of all of the available evidence. But why, then, when she was in the greatest possible position of power to act, did she do nothing?

I reached out to the Harris campaign for comment about the case, then and now. I’ll update this post if I get a response—the people Harris is asking to represent deserve one. If Harris feels “awful” about this, she should tell us why.

[Mister Mets]

Reforming our immigration policy will first require white Americans to come to terms with the fact that their current economic condition is built off the exploitation of other countries, and that letting more immigrants in to share in this prosperity is the right thing to do, even if it means a severe drop in their own quality of life. This will eventually happen one way or another, but I'm skeptical of even self-identified progressives embracing this reality anytime soon.

I welcome Democrats making the argument that letting immigrants in in larger numbers will result in a severe drop in the quality of life for many Americans.

I have gotten the impression that most Trump supporters legitimately believe his policies will be better for minorities, women, etc, which is a contrast from your belief that policies you advocate will make things worse for major demographic groups.

While Warren, Sanders and Harris appear to be frontrunners in the early going, I remain uncommitted to EVERYBODY until the debates and I get to listen to what ALL the candidates have to say. I'm not looking for purity, god knows that's a fool's errand, what I want, if not demand, is clarity from the candidates on their policies before I decide one way or the other.

That's a smart move. The first primary isn't until January.

Democrats in your state aren't expected to make a decision until more than an year from now.

https://www.uspresidentialelectionne...dule-calendar/

[Tendrin]

Uh holy WBE signal yikes.

Did this get by us? I think it did.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ve/2915021002/

House Speaker Glen Casada says he will continue to defend a Republican lawmaker accused of sexual assault against multiple former students, recently questioning the credibility of the women who came forward and implying that victims of rape should move.

In a video published by The Tennessee Holler, a newly created liberal media website, former Democratic candidate for Congress Justin Kanew questioned Casada about his support of Rep. David Byrd, R-Waynesboro.

Three women last year accused Byrd of sexually assaulting them in the 1980s when they were teenagers playing on the Wayne County High School girls basketball team, which Byrd coached.
In a story last spring, WSMV included audio from a phone call recorded by one of the women as she talked to Byrd about what happened when she was 15. Byrd said he was sorry, though he does not say specifically for what he is apologizing.

geeze. Another one I think we missed;

orth Carolina State Representative Cody Henson (Republican - Transylvania County)
North Carolina State Representative Cody Henson received a criminal summons from the Transylvania County Sheriff’s Office yesterday. This follows an investigation into complaints of harassment made by his estranged wife, Kelsey Henson.
Local Democratic Party leaders are now calling on the Republican lawmaker to resign.
Cody Henson placed under “no contact” order
On January 30th, Kelsey Henson filed a request for a domestic violence protection order against her husband. As reported in the Carolina Public Press, Henson’s wife said she had been trying unsuccessfully to get support from local law enforcement for over a year.
“I am asking for a protective order to keep me and my children safe,” she wrote in the filing. “I am in fear for my life and need this desperately.”

https://newsgrowl.com/nc-state-rep-c...ing-complaint/

When the GOP sends us their reps, they aren't sending us their best, etc, etc.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Bernie also said that he'll have ten years of tax returns by Monday

[Tendrin]

Bernie also said that he'll have ten years of tax returns by Monday

Long overdue.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Long overdue.

It's nearly a year before the primary and he's only declared 2 months ago.

[Tendrin]

It's nearly a year before the primary and he's only declared 2 months ago.

Long overdue because he promised to release them in 2016 and never did. He should have done it /back then/. Also, many other candidates, not running for the second time, have already released their own. I don't expect there to be any issue to them, beyond the usual Fox News 'hurr hurr he's a socialist who has money' nonsense anyway.

[Kevinroc]

I notice that people who gave me a hard time about filibuster reform haven't said a word to me since Sanders said he was open to the idea...

I wonder why?