So I guess we should expect some Amdy McCabe tweets this weekend after he appears on 60 Minutes:


McCabe says he opened investigations into Trump to put Russia probe 'on solid ground' - POLITICO

This weekend? Nah, he was all over that today. Must have been on Fox News during his 6 hour executive time.

Trump signing the budget compromise, but also declaring a national emergency apparently.

Good to see small government conservatives sticking to their principles.

Some Senate R's have warned for weeks that declaring a national emergency:

1. Sets a precedent the next Democratic president could follow in ways they hate.
2. Is likely to get Trump sued.
3. Probably won't get a single additional mile of wall built.

— Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) February 14, 2019

Make no mistake: the next Democratic President will declare national emergencies on guns and climate change and cite the Trump precedent when doing so.

— Doug Heye (@DougHeye) February 14, 2019

Pelosi pretty much just said as much in her presser.

Yeah I don't give a crap about a wall other than it wasting more tax dollars. But if this goes through, Democrats can do some stuff if they win the WH. Maybe the easiest way to get Medicare for All.

Politically, this seems to make sense--at least in the short term.

He either gets a wall built. Or, more likely, it is hung up in the courts, and he gets to blame Democrats and liberal judges for not keeping us safe.

I still think it's possible Trump will be too much of a coward to go through with this, but if he does it we'll be in a new world where the President can spend any appropriated money on anything he/she chooses. In a very real way, that would be the end of the legislative branch.

Pretty much spells the end of us.

The whole point of what the US was founded on was to prevent the tyranny of the whims of one leader without the representation of its people.

We've now crossed the Rubicon of which power can be usurped without following our Constitution.

Even if this gets knocked down in the courts, it sets the precedent that dependent on the right situation, one could eventually break our system of government.

Trump just wiped his ass with the Constitution and the GOP cheered him on. There is no way Democrats should justify this with their own whims. If they do so, it would hasten our demise even quicker.

Like Obama's nuclear deal with Iran....

How quickly we forget.

There is always a tweet.

Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2014

Can you elaborate further on the analogy you see?

?

How are those two things the same?

I think what he's referring to is that the Iran agreement was fashioned as a Cooperative Plan of Action or something like that and specifically wasn't referred to or treated as a treaty because treaties require Senate approval and Obama wasn't likely to get Senate approval.

I think the analogy falls apart because the Iran agreement had provisions for the next administration to withdraw from it, as Trump did, while declaring a national emergency to build a wall has more concrete long-term effects.

I see what you did there.

The Iranian deal was not voted thru the senate. They didn't have the required votes and it was forced thru. In my opinion, to say Trump is the first president to force his will is not accurate. Obama and others from both sides have done so as well, which is why I find Pelosi's and other Dem's comments today somewhat comedic.

I get what digamma is saying though regarding the wall being more concrete :)

Probably the only way to get significant movement on "more, sensible" gun control. I like the threat and predict a run up of gun/ammo buying before the election.

(I'll have to add to my collection also for a just-in-case)

Pelosi warns GOP: Next presidentÂ*could declare national emergency on guns | TheHill

Up it goes, down it goes, up it goes etc. based on who wins the Presidency.

Trump to NBC reporter Peter Alexander on the national emergency:


“I didn’t need to do this.” “I just want to do it faster.”


That's a lot of lawsuits he just lost.

I think the wall move by Trump is fantastic and I hope it works - I look forward to a future democratic President using this tactic to declare an emergency on gun deaths and another one on the lack of a nationalised health system .... fantastic stuff, thanks Mr. Trump :D

You have to wonder if that sentiment is prominent enough in republicans to strike down the emergency.

If it wasn't so horrifying would be fascinating times we live in.

We just moved back to NJ, and my wife was very clear with her boss we want to remain here. He said that is too bad because he had her tapped for a 3 year assignment in London. Kind if wishing we had gone down a different path.

I can just picture President AOC trying to round up the guns lol

It feels like we're living in a political sim where someone is trying to break things to figure out how the sim engine works.

I'll admit I am just playing this out off the top of my head without any research. But what is the actual cost, given what is likely to happen?

Trump declares the national emergency. The move is challenged in court as unconstitutional. Judges strike it down as not an emergency and an overreach of executive power. Trunp pouts.

Future Dem president tries to do the same thing with guns or healthcare. Same thing happens. Again, no changes.

IMO, I think the only thing that could get by the courts is climate change, as there are real concerns that could be a national and global emergency. But even that would depend on the level of measures requested and how strong the feeling of urgency is.

I think the fear is that the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that the President has wide latitude to define "national emergency" and then it becomes a clusterfuck.

Which I think is what some republicans feared and why they didn't want him to do it. If it fails in court, then less of a chance of Dems trying it. If the SC rules in his favor, though, I don't know if repubs in Senate and the House want to trade a national emergency on the Wall for one on guns and/or health care.

And that is an understandable fear, but my gut (my hope?) is that even conservative judges are going to be at least somewhat reasonable and would not approve egregious violations of the constitution, which this qualifies for, IMO.

They may be conservative but since they aren't by any account nutso like Trump or some of the people backing him, I suspect they will use a lot more reason and logic and uphold the importance of the framing document over the whims of one man.

Because he has positioned the courts to be in favor of overreaching powers by the executive branch.

I don't think the Supreme Court has any desire to touch the case. I think the most likely scenario is it's struck down by a lower federal court and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal.

I disagree. They're not as crazy as he is, even the conservatives.

But if they feel it is an actual emergency it doesn’t become an egregious violation. Let’s also not act like quid pro quo doesn’t exist with regards to recent nominations.

I think they'll pretend to care but actually support the move. They have to give the belief that they are big on the Constitution instead of coming out and outright supporting an Autocrat.

We keep echoing this sentiment about a lot of things surrounding this administration, yet this stuff keeps happening, and getting exponentially worse.

I think you're letting your bias toward assuming the worst of the other side get to you, IMO. I don't think any of the Supreme Court justices are unreasonable, even Cavanaugh.

Well, you're free to feel that way, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Kavanaugh doesn’t think a sitting president should be able to be tried for crimes while in office. I don’t trust his judgment in the least.

The Supreme Court only needs four votes to grant cert.

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Bob's your uncle.

I hope that SCOTUS stops it as well, but there is definitely more than a zero % chance that SCOTUS takes the President's side on this, especially with a more expanded view of executive power on the bench. Interestingly this may be another case where CJ Roberts has to stop the insanity leading to people on the right calling him Satan.

I was, once again, wrong about Trump. I thought he'd declare the wall built, declare victory, and call it a day. I didn't see the emergency resolution coming.

Pelosi just latched on to this on Twitter.

Agreed. It is definitely more than zero and I don't think Lathum or other Dems are wrong to fear it happening, but I truly don't think it will happen. I think they will strike it down, something like 6-3, 7-2. It won't be close.

If the gap would be that big they won’t even hear it. They talk. It will be 5-4 one way or the other. There is a reason Merrik Garland happened and it’s at our doorstep.

Only plausible if the lower courts smack it down unanimously (or approve it unanimously). If there's a split on a Constitutional question, SCOTUS will almost certainly have to take the case to resolve the split decision.

Neither does the DOJ, going back multiple adminstrations. I don't think that's an extreme view - they should be impeached first, which is the constitutional remedy. Personally I think a big part of the problem is that as a nation we've never been willing to impeach nearly often enough. .

Mueller's team recommends 19-24 years for Manafort,

Starting to see lots of my pro-Trump FB friends posting memes that say "When are politicians going to declare a national emergency over our country's $22 trillion debt?"

Followed by comments cheering on true patriots to resist the liberal agenda that dug that deficit.

After spending an hour last night reading comments on an article about girls in Scouts BSA where everyone was blaming the liberal/transgender agenda for the de-masculinization of society*, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe we shouldn't just burn it all down and start again.

[*] I'm not going to explain the whole girl dens in Boy Scouts thing and how that came about. I'm going to assume you guys can both Google and read, but if you want the tl;dr on it: nobody forced anybody to do anything...unless you want to count market forces from declining enrollment. It was a business decision aimed at growing the market.

I think humans are about to be their own undoing with so much disinformation and tribalism out there. We're mostly smart enough as a species to avoid it, but I think the sheer number of mentally secluded idiots out there are going to eventually overpower the rest of us. Half of them seem to want to accelerate our demise in the name of their god returning to save them. The worse it gets, the more they believe the revelation is upon us.

I wouldn't give us great odds of making it out of this century.

We need the baby boomers and depression era folks to die off.

It sounds harsh, but they are the biggest group that support the lunacy. My 88 year old dad the other day was claiming global warming isn't real, and every 11,000 years the planet goes through this cycle.

He actually believes this shit, and as long as his retirement account grows he doesn't give 2 shits about the planet, the wall, or the perversion of the constitution.

And we've got a backup plan in case climate change doesn't do the job, we'll just kill all the insects and make it impossible to grow food.

Trump's pick to replace Nikki Haley as UN Ambassdor withdraws her nomination:


https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/polit...dor/index.html

I think we overvalue our own intelligence compared to other generations. Guarantee our children, grandchildren, etc. will be saying the same exact stuff about us, in a 'how the heck do you believe that crap/you embarrass me to my core/etc. type of way'. It's just the way things are.

I don't see humanity destroying itself, but I think we're in for some massive upheavals. Thing is, at a certain point people will want their leaders to do whatever is necessary to 'fix' the problems, at which point I think we'll end up back in a more autocratic arrangement for much of the world and quite possibly a one-world government. The end of the species? Nah, but I think the planet will look as unrecognizable to us as we would to those who lived in the 19th century 100 years from now. Perhaps even moreso.

If you've ever raised teenagers, you know this future is now. :lol:

So Roger Stone, with a partial gag order in place thanks to a judge trying to meet him halfway on First Amendment rights, has now apparently posted a picture of the judge on instagram with a crosshair above her head. Hope he now finds himself in jail where he belongs

Meanwhile, actual election fraud (and no, it's not Mexicans voting)...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/18/polit...ing/index.html

I also think the chance goes down to 0% if they don't hear it next summer & Trump isn't President in 2021. Conservative justices aren't going to approve that expanded view if the sitting President isn't interested in using that wall money and could use it for progressive causes.

Also, idk why people are latching on to climate change as the Boogeyman when it seems obvious gun control is the one conservatives should be scared about. It's not like there's even a way for the US to reverse climate change, let alone a politically palatable one, while there are obvious anti gun owner measures that would be supported by ~50% or more of the electorate. (And while the judiciary might not care about giving the executive branch more power vs the legislative, I think they'll be less enthusiastic to permanently give up judiciary power to the executive.)

He must assume that he's getting a pardon.

I just assume he's insane and doesn't care what happens :)

They got to the main person they wanted to talk to, who was subpoenaed to appear, as were the other witnesses, Want him to testify voluntarily like the others did. He wants immunity from prosecution if he testifies. He refuses to testify and that will reflect negatively on him in terms of the board's decision. He is dismissed and will not testify. And day 1 of the hearing is over.

Yes, it's obvious Dowless was doing illegal things. Was it enough to affect the margin of victory idk, but either way it's enough for a new election (and the question then becomes whether you run the primary back too.) How much Harris knew is up for debate (my impression of him is that he's a political neophyte, while Pettinger was the one smart enough to understand just how shady Dowless was and stay away after past experiences), but no surprise Dowless is holding out for immunity.

I'd like McCready the most of the three candidates, but at a certain point I'd just really like if Charlotte had a representative for most of this 2 year cycle.

Even if they get Dowless to testify, I'm not sure we will ever know how many ballots were tampered with. To me that means new election. The only question is if Harris knew what was going on and approved it. If he did, R's nominate someone else to run in his place. Dowless needs to go to jail for what he's done too.

Roger Stone realizing what an idiot he has been, formally apologizes in court and says it was improper and should not have been posted.

Pettinger & Harris are basically the same in policy terms, so the R's would rather just nominate Pettinger who isn't tainted by association and get it over with. D's would rather McCready run against Harris than Pettinger, so that's part of what's taking so long.

I was under the impression that the Rs can not redo their nomination since the results have been certified or something like that.

So, how many of you are on meds to retain your sanity so far?

Bernie Sanders announces he is running again.

2020 can't get here soon enough. Win or Lose for Trump, the next election will say a lot about America

Watched snippets of his announcement - at 77 he speaks and presents himself pretty well.

Really disappointed by this - I love his policies but he's far too old to run imho and I can see this as an easy 'in' for disrupting the Democrat vote (again) through the 'why wasn't he the candidate' when he predictably fails to get nominated ...

at 77 being the key words there-just can't vote for someone that old-especially after seeing the 71? year old Trump in action these past two years.

Have you heard about the comic "Non Sequitir" by Wiley Miller? Seems a few days ago he scribbled a message to Trump in the corner of his comic, and its now costing him being published in a lot of newspapers.


Newspaper Cuts Ties With Comic After Discovering 'Go F**k Yourself' To Trump | HuffPost

I see Russian's favorite Democrat is back for more.

Sherrod Brown at 66 is going to seem like a child when he announces he's running ;).

So the judge Roger Stone posted the picture of wants him to appear in court Thursday afternoon to explain his actions...

Sanders can't possibly be higher than #2. Tulsi Gabbard is the one and true Queen.

The Boomers will not quietly let go of their power, but it's time we moved on from them.

The Post has a bit today about Trump appointees promoting nuclear sales to the Saudis over the protestations of WH lawyers, and the head of the NSC, citing conflict of interest, national security and legal issues. Apparently this was still in discussion in the Oval Office as recently as last week.



Good to see the WH is still looking at punishing the Saudi's for the assassination in the Turkey.

It's this administration's uranium 1 scandal except it appears to be a legit scandal.

35% of the country still believes all of this is fake news without stopping to think that maybe 1 of the hundreds of scandals coming from this administration might be true.

I'm fairly certain if Trump just came out and admitted everything was true and resigned his supporters would just say the Deep State finally got to him.

And that fucks with non-proliferation, so there's some speculation that Flynn sent Eric Prince to the Seychelles meeting with the Saudis and the Russians to work out a deal everyone could agree to.

The Trump voters list has got to be the holy grail for phone scammers right now.

My MIL would watch FOX news 24/7 if I didn't make her turn it off when my kids are around. The commercials they run make it so blatantly obvious who the target audience is for Trump supporters.

The super delegates screwed up the dem vote last time. As an example, Bernie won all 55 counties in WV, yet somehow HRC pulled more delegates.

Watching the Dems will be interesting. I wonder who the choose as the heir apparent.

I'm not sure that means anything. The eight unpledged delegates voted for Clinton at the convention, but by that point Clinton had well more pledged delegates than Bernie. Around 85% of the unpledged delegates went to Clinton, but the only way Bernie could have won is if almost all of those had voted for him, the loser of the pledged delegates.

As Sean Spicer would say, Hillary won because she had the most pledged delegates, period.

Yes, that is true. But was it really what the people wanted? Bernie "ewon" a lot of states that turned around and handed HRC their delegates.

The unpledged is the problem isnt it? Isnt it like the Dems hating the electoral college after HRC lost? She got more fot he popular vote, yet lost. Bernie ran into the same thing on a smaller scale.

I can understand the intent of any Dem primary structure intended to favor actual members of the party they're determining their nomination for.

Though apparently this year to run (as part of the compromise of scaling down the power of the super-democrats), Bernie will have to at least file an intent to join the party.

Yeah, makes sense. But when do the people matter? The power wanted HRC, the people, Bernie. Or so it seemed. I think that turned off a lot of dem voters in the presidential election. Like those WV dems.

I'm in the minority here, but I think that parties are private entities that should have pretty much unlimited control over their nominees. I don't think that it is "unfair" that party nominations are not just elections, but instead are a combination of primaries, party boss influence, etc.

General elections should be free and fair. But the party nominees are a different story.

The incentive to want to put up electable candidates provides enough incentive for the parties to try and put up good candidates.

I would rather go towards a true democracy and elect the people with the highest vote totals.

Yeah, we've been over this a million times.

Hillary won more contests (34 of 57), won the biggest contests (CA, NY, FL, OH, TX), and won more of the popular vote (55.2%). The superdelegates were not a factor.

I mean there's the truth, but also the voice of the legions of BernieBros who still say they were screwed. Both are relevant and impact the political landscape. Truth is maybe less important than it's ever been.

That's insightful, because truth is so spinnable in this context. There are lots of different metrics through which one can view a contest, so any group can feel that their guy should have won.

"We got more votes"
"We got more delegates"
"We won the swing states"
"We won the most caucuses"
"The other candidate ran up the score in the caucuses"
"We won the most primaries"
"We won the most votes after [news event X] happened"
"More voters in exit polls said that our candidate was the most electable in a general election"
"We won all the big states"
"The other candidate ran up the score in the big states"
"Our candidate got the most cross-over votes in open primaries, making them the best general election candidate."
"Our candidate did best in closed primaries, so they are the best candidate for motivating the base in a general election."

Well on the basis of the argument that we're having (that superdelegates decided the election for Hillary in spite of popular support for Bernie), it's not spinnable.

Hillary won the most votes. Hillary had the most pledged delegates. She would've won if there were no superdelegates at all. That is a fact and not a spinnable argument. In fact, the only way Bernie could've won is if the superdelegates did for him what his supporters erroneously claimed the superdelegates did for Hillary.

At some point, rationally, you have to start discounting the rantings of people who are that far gone.

With all the heat around the superdelegates before the convention, I'm pretty sure if Bernie was leading in pledged delegates most of them would have supported him.

I mean, what the fuck.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "The New York Times reporting is false. They are a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!"

And the Bernie supports were also a major target for online manipulation, a lot of Putin Pals mixed in with the Bernie Bros. I’m sure there will be a major push on Twitter/Facebook/Reddit to make it feel like whoever comes in second got screwed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/u...ndraising.html




I know the age thing is an issue to many, but I do think it's pretty obvious we have ourselves the early frontrunner for the Dems.

Which is basically what happened in 2008, IIRC. Most super-delegates were supporting Clinton at the beginning, but Obama started winning a bunch of states and their votes switched to Obama. Obama ended up with 2./3rds of the super delegates (and 51% of the pledged delegates).

If we were going by strict popular vote, Hilary would have been the nominee in 2008. She had 17.8 million votes to Obama's 17.5 million.

That's only by counting Michigan, where Obama had removed his name from the ballot because the DNC stripped it of all delegates. Without Michigan, Obama beats her in the popular vote.