All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tendrin]

Hopefully he'll soon be Bill DisBarred.

[Tami]

ICE Is Trying To Force BuzzFeed News To Divulge Its Sources

Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators issued a subpoena this week demanding BuzzFeed News identify its sources — an extraordinary attempt by the government to interfere with a news outlet acting under the protections of the First Amendment, and a move that the agency’s former chief lambasted as “embarrassing.”

The effort to pressure BuzzFeed News into revealing sources comes after relentless efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to undermine the free press. The outgoing president has for years lied about news outlets that publish true but critical stories about him and his administration, calling them “fake news,” which has opened reporters up to threats and violence.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators issued a subpoena this week demanding BuzzFeed News identify its sources — an extraordinary attempt by the government to interfere with a news outlet acting under the protections of the First Amendment, and a move that the agency’s former chief lambasted as “embarrassing.”

The effort to pressure BuzzFeed News into revealing sources comes after relentless efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to undermine the free press. The outgoing president has for years lied about news outlets that publish true but critical stories about him and his administration, calling them “fake news,” which has opened reporters up to threats and violence.

[Tami]

Trump targets 25 ‘RINO’s’ in Congress who admit he lost election

President Trump wants to name and shame the two dozen-plus members of Congress who say he lost the election.

Branding the lawmakers “RINO’s,” or Republicans in name only, Trump asked for a list of the malcontents who told the Washington Post that they accept that President-elect Joe Biden won last month’s contest.

“Wow! I am surprised there are so many,” Trump tweeted. “We have just begun to fight.”

Even though Trump derided the Post as “Fake News,” he apparently takes its reporting at face value: “Please send me a list of the 25 RINOS,” he wrote.

[Tami]

How Your Brain Tricks You Into Taking Risks During the Pandemic

Experts who study the way we think and make decisions say that it can be more than politics driving our decision-making this year. The unprecedented nature of the pandemic undermines how we process information and assess risk. Need proof? Look around.

[Mister Mets]

Looks like Barr knows that Biden won't keep him on, so he has to do something to make himself look like he has a backbone for potential employers or clients.

And the first Trump henchman who needs to walk the plank after Biden takes over is that baldheaded hellspawn Stephen Miller. That bastard is THE most evil sumbitch in that abominable administration and has NO business being in government, unless we’re talking about Russia. Miller would fit in perfectly as Bad Vlad’s right hand devil.

I would imagine neither Barr nor Miller is under the illusion that they'll stay on.

Senior advisors to Presidents/ Directors of Speechwriting tend not to stay when members of the different party take over.

Attorney Generals also get switched. Barr left the first time the day Clinton was inaugurated.

[Steel Inquisitor]

What's in green is reasonably simple, and you are almost to where the actual reality is with what's in blue.

Here's the issue with your point of view in blue...

McConnell did not actually have to do anything once Pelosi decided to refuse that deal. Never mind actually having been put into a position where he would either have to do something bad or actually help John/Jane Public out a little bit.

That is how Pelosi helped McConnell. In an instance where she a actually had a chance to put him into a position where he might have to actually do the bad thing you are bringing up?

Pelosi passed, and made sure that McConnell didn't have to deal with anything.

Your first sentence is gibberish.

All that showed was that McConnel had all the cards when it came to the senate, with is correct. There's not much Pelosi could have done with that. You never went into what Pelosi should have done to put McConnell into a less advantageous position. What she should do to leverage McConnell is talked around since there is no substance in that description.

Again, no explanation about how Pelosi helped McConnell. What chance would that be? How?

Pelosi never gave up trying to get the stimulus bill. She's working with McConnell and Biden on that as we speak.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/04/coro...bs-report.html

Pelosi spoke to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday for the first time in at least a month. The conversation boosted hopes about an agreement on Capitol Hill to lift an economy and health-care system damaged by the coronavirus.

The California Democrat said she and the Kentucky Republican agreed they want to attach aid measures to a must-pass government funding bill — if they can resolve outstanding issues with that legislation. Lawmakers need to approve a spending plan by Dec. 11 to prevent a government shutdown.

“The tone of our conversations is one that is indicative of the decision to get the job done,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol.

At no point were McConnell's action with the stimulus bill which he wants to cut funding so less people are saved from the pandemic and other factors, like unemployment, criticised as being bad. The problem is when Republicans hear about peoples lived being ruined and dying they simply don't care.

[Mister Mets]

Your first sentence is gibberish.

All that showed was that McConnel had all the cards when it came to the senate, with is correct. There's not much Pelosi could have done with that. You never went into what Pelosi should have done to put McConnell into a less advantageous position. What she should do to leverage McConnell is talked around since there is no substance in that description.

Again, no explanation about how Pelosi helped McConnell. What chance would that be? How?

Pelosi never gave up trying to get the stimulus bill. She's working with McConnell and Biden on that as we speak.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/04/coro...bs-report.html



At no point were McConnell's action with the stimulus bill which he wants to cut funding so less people are saved from the pandemic and other factors, like unemployment, criticised as being bad. The problem is when Republicans hear about peoples lived being ruined and dying they simply don't care.

The Senate Republicans also had a relief bill. It would be one thing if there was a poison pill in it that Democrats could not abide, but the main difference was about whether it went far enough.

Under those circumstances, the decision of the House Democrats to not go with a smaller bill that could pass the Senate signaled to the public that it wasn't that serious.

The smartest move politically would be for the House to pass a smaller bill that the Senate would also pass, and then to go with new popular bills that the Republican Senate would reject, hammering that point.

Once again the woman is being blamed when a man does something bad, even when it's not in her own jurisdiction because congress is split in two and she's not the Minority leader in the senate, that'd be Chuck Schumer. And what is this thing she's supposed to be doing? What alleged leverage does she have to circumvent both McConnel, the man known for blocking voting for SCOTUS nominees who stole a seat from Obama and Donald Trump, who will veto anything on his desk which Democrats like?

Funny, works for the GOP. Not that Pelosi have that kind of leverage, Democrats have to compromise or get nothing and they'll blamed when the GOP win in congress.

Pelosi has nothing to do with Democratic elections, but the right love to make her the boogeyman when AOC and Hillary aren't around. Maybe when Pelosi's gone they'll be blaming a freshman representative for why Democrats losing seats in congress and when McConnell stops Democratic bills in the senate.

How did she help McConnell?

Pelosi is a leader of the Democratic party. Votes for members of Congress are made with the understanding that a Democratic candidate will vote for Pelosi as Speaker.

With spending bills some level of compromise is necessary.

This is assuming that Mitch allows the bill to the floor for a vote. And assumes that Trump won't veto it out of spite. I do agree that Pelosi screwed up, but as someone else pointed out, she thought that the Democrats would be in a much better position after the election.



This I agree with 100% What exactly has she accomplished as Speaker? An Impeachment that went nowhere, a stimulus bill that stalled, and an election where she LOST seats. It's time for some fresh leadership.

I suspect the impeachment backfired.

One of the problems is that the charges were lame. One of them was that Trump was mean to Congress. Both charges were also not about the underlying crime, which allows for the argument that Trump did nothing wrong and Democrats are abusing the legal system to go after a President they don't like, and unwilling to put the most serious allegations on the record. I completely understand the counterargument that abuse of power was used to hide the evidence of the crime, but it still would have been better to go after something more concrete.

I disagree that she should have taken ANY deal from Trump. He doesn't believe in deals that benefit anyone but himself, historically.

Pelosi should allow a new Speaker to come to the fore in 2021, though. Someone like Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, Val Demings, Karen Bass, or Marcia Fudge would be a great idea.

Val Demings is going to be a third-term member of Congress.

Karen Bass has the same downsides she had when her vice-presidential trial balloon turned into lead. I do fully agree that she is an above-average House Democrat.

Marcia Fudge is the chair of several sub-committees. She doesn't seem ready to be Speaker. Previous speakers are either in House leadership, and/ or acknowledged as intellectual leaders within their party.

Eric Swallwell's presidential campaign bombed, and his greatest position is chair of an intelligence Subcommittee

Schiff is probably the best of the lot. The question would be how he functions in a leadership position when he doesn't have an adversarial relationship with a President.

[Jack Dracula]

That was the whole point...

Pelosi making an intentional move to derail the thing instead of putting McConnell into a position where he had to either block throwing John/Jane Public a rope or actually get them a minimal amount of help right before an election was the stupidest thing she could have done.

There is no way you build up political goodwill by saying "We Will Help You, But On Our Terms..."

If anything? That is liable to make it more difficult for you to win the elections you will actually need to do it on your own terms.

Which is exactly what wound up happening.

Never mind that she helped McConnell out of a bind when she did it.

Realistically, if you weren't in the room during negotiations and privy to the behind-the-scenes dealing and correspondence all you're "she could've" is just speculation.
The overlying absolute truth is if Democrats didn't have to deal with Trump, McConnell and a fanatically hostile GOP a comprehensive relief package would've been passed months ago, so let's save our blame for where it actually belongs.

Looks like Barr knows that Biden won't keep him on, so he has to do something to make himself look like he has a backbone for potential employers or clients.

I suspect it has more to do with how history will record his time in office. Too late to change that by acting tough now. He sold his credibility for a high position as an enabler for one of our worst Presidents and that's how the history books will portray him.

I suspect the impeachment backfired.

One of the problems is that the charges were lame. One of them was that Trump was mean to Congress. Both charges were also not about the underlying crime, which allows for the argument that Trump did nothing wrong and Democrats are abusing the legal system to go after a President they don't like, and unwilling to put the most serious allegations on the record. I completely understand the counterargument that abuse of power was used to hide the evidence of the crime, but it still would have been better to go after something more concrete.

I disagree with the bold part. With Congress being one of the few checks on the President it seems absolutely necessary one of the main charges relate to lying and or denying congressional authority. Not doing so could set a very dangerous precedent.
You should know that so I'm not sure why you would attempt to play that down with your "mean to Congress" description.

[Kirby101]

He asked a foreign leader to interfere with our elections in exchange for aid. That is why he was impeached, how Mets is okay with him doing this and saying it was no big deal is not surprising.

And "being mean"? He would not allow Congress the Constitutionally mandated information they were, by law, mandated to have.

So Mets is also okay with Congress have no oversight over the Executive branch, good to know where he stands.

If anything the post election has shown us, Trump does not care at all about Democracy in this country, his behavior with Ukraine was just part of his anti-American mindset.

And BTW, asking Governor Kemp to throw out the election results are also a crime. But some here think there are no crimes that this President should be held accountable for.

[Tami]

He asked a foreign leader to interfere with our elections in exchange for aid. That is why he was impeached, how Mets is okay with him doing this and saying it was no big deal is not surprising.

And "being mean"? He would not allow Congress the Constitutionally mandated information they were, by law, mandated to have.

So Mets is also okay with Congress have no oversight over the Executive branch, good to know where he stands.

If anything the post election has shown us, Trump does not care at all about Democracy in this country, his behavior with Ukraine was just part of his anti-American mindset.

And BTW, asking Governor Kemp to throw out the election results are also a crime. But some here think there are no crimes that this President should be held accountable for.

He didn't ask, he tried to blackmail (is that the right word?) a foreign leader, trying to force him to get invovled in the election against his will and against the best interests of his country.

[Kirby101]

He didn't ask, he tried to blackmail (is that the right word?) a foreign leader, trying to force him to get invovled in the election against his will and against the best interests of his country.

Better phrasing, yes.

[Mister Mets]

I disagree with the bold part. With Congress being one of the few checks on the President it seems absolutely necessary one of the main charges relate to lying and or denying congressional authority. Not doing so could set a very dangerous precedent.
You should know that so I'm not sure why you would attempt to play that down with your "mean to Congress" description.

If someone lies under oath, Congress should have charged that individual with perjury.

If the House thought President Trump encouraged someone to lie under oath, they could have charged him for subornation of perjury (a felony) during the impeachment process. It seems to me that's a better charge than obstruction of Congress.

A precedent with the contempt of Congress charge is that it becomes a tool for Congress any time anyone can argue the White House circumvented Congress, slow-walked a process, etc.

It's also a politically unwise charge when congress has low approval ratings, and the swing voters are disproportionately likely to believe that members of Congress view themselves as self-important.

It was a smart move for Congress to limit the number of charges to a small number (2-3) but they could have chosen better.

He asked a foreign leader to interfere with our elections in exchange for aid. That is why he was impeached, how Mets is okay with him doing this and saying it was no big deal is not surprising.

And "being mean"? He would not allow Congress the Constitutionally mandated information they were, by law, mandated to have.

So Mets is also okay with Congress have no oversight over the Executive branch, good to know where he stands.

If anything the post election has shown us, Trump does not care at all about Democracy in this country, his behavior with Ukraine was just part of his anti-American mindset.

And BTW, asking Governor Kemp to throw out the election results are also a crime. But some here think there are no crimes that this President should be held accountable for.

There is a middle ground between saying that something is no big deal, and that it is worthy of impeachment, or believing that Congress has no oversight of the executive branch, and that a particular charge of obstruction of Congress during an impeachment process was worthwhile.

[Kirby101]

If someone lies under oath, Congress should have charged that individual with perjury.

If the House thought President Trump encouraged someone to lie under oath, they could have charged him for subornation of perjury (a felony) during the impeachment process. It seems to me that's a better charge than obstruction of Congress.

A precedent with the contempt of Congress charge is that it becomes a tool for Congress any time anyone can argue the White House circumvented Congress, slow-walked a process, etc.

It's also a politically unwise charge when congress has low approval ratings, and the swing voters are disproportionately likely to believe that members of Congress view themselves as self-important.

It was a smart move for Congress to limit the number of charges to a small number (2-3) but they could have chosen better.

There is a middle ground between saying that something is no big deal, and that it is worthy of impeachment, or believing that Congress has no oversight of the executive branch, and that a particular charge of obstruction of Congress during an impeachment process was worthwhile.

What is the other action to be taken when a President commits multiple crimes?
And it is highly doubtful McConnellwould have taken up any crime he would have been impeached for.

[shooshoomanjoe]

New information about Rudy's credible witness has come up:

A Donald Trump supporter who gave bizarre and discredited testimony about voter fraud in Detroit was recently released from probation after being accused of sending pornographic videos to her fiance’s ex-wife and framing the woman for stealing them, HuffPost has learned.

Mellissa Carone, a contract information technology worker for a voting systems company, made sweeping allegations about mass voter fraud when she testified in hearings before the Michigan Senate and House last week.

She was previously charged under the name Mellissa Wright with first degree obscenity and using a computer to commit a crime. Under a plea agreement, she reduced her charge to disorderly conduct and received 12 months of probation, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County, Michigan, prosecutor’s office told HuffPost. Her probation ended on Sept. 13, just weeks before Election Day, when a temporary staffing agency employed Carone to assist Dominion Voting Systems in Detroit.

[Jack Dracula]

If someone lies under oath, Congress should have charged that individual with perjury.

If the House thought President Trump encouraged someone to lie under oath, they could have charged him for subornation of perjury (a felony) during the impeachment process. It seems to me that's a better charge than obstruction of Congress.

A precedent with the contempt of Congress charge is that it becomes a tool for Congress any time anyone can argue the White House circumvented Congress, slow-walked a process, etc.

It's also a politically unwise charge when congress has low approval ratings, and the swing voters are disproportionately likely to believe that members of Congress view themselves as self-important.

It was a smart move for Congress to limit the number of charges to a small number (2-3) but they could have chosen better.

There is a middle ground between saying that something is no big deal, and that it is worthy of impeachment, or believing that Congress has no oversight of the executive branch, and that a particular charge of obstruction of Congress during an impeachment process was worthwhile.

Subornation of perjury falls under the heading of obstruction.

The contempt of Congress charge exists with good reason and up to this point has not been notably abused. I'd argue that since the charge would be leveled after lengthy debate inside Congressional circles rather than as an order by an individual it's less likely to be abused. Regarding slippery slopes, I think an erosion of Congressional authority over the Executive branch outweighs the unlikely possibility of abuse.

Not Charging Trump with contempt/obstruction would do more to damage their reputation among Democrats than letting it go resulting in the adverse effect of tacitly encouraging Trumps' administration to defy Congressional oversight.
If you're thinking of Congresses reputation among Republicans I think that ship sailed long ago.