|
botany posted:has this hot take by noted first-rate shithead alan dershowitz been posted? Then he should have pardoned him. Saying he has the ability to grant pardons and therefore it isn't obstruction to try to get Comey to drop the investigation is retarded. He has the ability to grant pardons, so grant the loving pardon if that's what you want to do. Until then, trying to stop an investigation is obstruction. Has something come loose in this rear end in a top hat's brain?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:lol, nice job Alan, except there is literal legal precedent that exercising your legal power to protect yourself from a crime is NOT LEGAL. pardoning flynn to avoid the investigation is likely not a crime, but who loving cares because he didn't pardon flynn the pardon power is public and the president has to answer to the public for its use, which is why the president didn't use it and you can't use illegal methods just because you can achieve the same end legally
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Morrow posted:He's also worth millions in his own right so he's under no pressure to work for work. He can probably wait for a prestigious gig. His gig is going to be golfing 18 holes a day for a law firm and collecting a few million a year for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Comey basically said Flynn could be removed from the investigation and they'd still have plenty to work with, didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:This greatly disappoints me. I've been watching "Better Call Saul" in which a central plot point is a crazy lawyer getting driven even more crazy by someone gaslighting him that he made one simple transposition error in a huge document. This led me to believe that lawyers are pretty OCD. Reality, as usual, disappoints. Yeah, but you gotta realize that for every McGill in law there are 10 Barry Zuckerkorns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Morrow posted:He's also worth millions in his own right so he's under no pressure to work for work. He can probably wait for a prestigious gig. He could run for office  They are already calling him "Senator Comey."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Which person in the current situation is Bob Loblaw?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:lol, nice job Alan, except there is literal legal precedent that exercising your legal power to protect yourself from prosecution is NOT LEGAL. he actually adresses that in his opinion piece in the washington examiner: quote:In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself. that's likely going to be one of the GOP talking points going forward. edit: source is here http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...article/2625318 edit edit: ReidRansom posted:Then he should have pardoned him. Saying he has the ability to grant pardons and therefore it isn't obstruction to try to get Comey to drop the investigation is retarded. He has the ability to grant pardons, so grant the loving pardon if that's what you want to do. Until then, trying to stop an investigation is obstruction. Has something come loose in this rear end in a top hat's brain? he was always a loving rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:pardoning flynn to avoid the investigation is likely not a crime, but who loving cares because he didn't pardon flynn And a pardon means Flynn can be compelled to testify with no 5th amendment protections. Someone has probably told Trump this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I think Comey just loving killed it for anyone who bothered watching that. It blowing up doesn't matter if the damage is done. The Comey thing was good but it also proved that literally nothing is going to stop the GOP except their own incompetence and we have to keep praying they are incompetent enough to fail (rather than incompetent enough to do massive soul-crushing damage) until 2018 (optimistic) or 2020. If this had been Obama there would be riots in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:He could run for office
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:And a pardon means Flynn can be compelled to testify with no 5th amendment protections. Someone has probably told Trump this. There aren't any easy outs for Trump with this. The story has to come out naturally or it will continue to damage the Republican brand until it does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
botany posted:he actually adresses that in his opinion piece in the washington examiner: The first charge in the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was obstruction of justice, so saying he wasn't guilty of obstruction but some painfully specific statute that amounts to obstruction is kind of a reach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sppeoples/status/873187660952686592
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It blowing up doesn't matter if the damage is done. The Comey thing was good but it also proved that literally nothing is going to stop the GOP except their own incompetence and we have to keep praying they are incompetent enough to fail (rather than incompetent enough to do massive soul-crushing damage) until 2018 (optimistic) or 2020. If this had been Obama there would be riots in the streets. They repealed most of Dodd-Frank yesterday. So yeah, they will cause massive damage on that front alone. Of course it won't pass Senate but it's still... deeply disturbing. Not to mention all the regressive poo poo Sessions is doing on the civil liberties front. poo poo is hosed, basically, and will be until 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
botany posted:he actually adresses that in his opinion piece in the washington examiner: The key difference being that Weinberger and those others were actually pardoned and Flynn and whoever else under investigation haven't been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:And a pardon means Flynn can be compelled to testify with no 5th amendment protections. Someone has probably told Trump this. i doubt anyone has told trump this, because he wouldn't understand it and it would remind him he can pardon flynn
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
And keep in mind a pardon does not mean "this guy didn't commit a crime". It means "he committed a crime but he is forgiven."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:They repealed most of Dodd-Frank yesterday. Yeah, the Dodd-Frank think was front and center in my mind when I posted that. People are hype over the Comey thing but the damage being done is astronomical and going "It's only 4 months and things are thing bad for Trump" can also be turned to "It's been 4 months and they've already done this much." The fact that it isn't worse is almost entirely down to sheer incompetence on the GOP's part, nothing anyone else has done. If they were more together then we'd already have the AHCA and a Muslim Ban. (Maybe a slightly less catastrophically awful AHCA but maybe not.) It's possible to be optimistic about 2018 but when the GOP is going full-tilt batnuts the "be patient, wait for things" viewpoint is hard to take. Patience isn't really a virtue when you're being patient while someone is shooting wildly at you and you're praying they just keep missing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The first charge in the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was obstruction of justice, so saying he wasn't guilty of obstruction but some painfully specific statute that amounts to obstruction is kind of a reach. plus, the "smoking gun" that convinced everyone the gig was up was his tape of himself ordering someone to have the fbi drop an investigation
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
I'm liking this new casual profanity thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yeah, the Dodd-Frank think was front and center in my mind when I posted that. People are hype over the Comey thing but the damage being done is astronomical and going "It's only 4 months and things are thing bad for Trump" can also be turned to "It's been 4 months and they've already done this much." The fact that it isn't worse is almost entirely down to sheer incompetence on the GOP's part, nothing anyone else has done. If they were more together then we'd already have the AHCA and a Muslim Ban. (Maybe a slightly less catastrophically awful AHCA but maybe not.) Nobody is paying attention to Dodd-Frank repeal because it can't be done via reconciliation and therefore will get filibustered in the Senate. The bill the House passed doesn't even pretend it's trying to get 8 democrats on board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:I'm liking this new casual profanity thing. https://twitter.com/hamiltonnolan/status/873186899606867968
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:There's also a good chance he's still using whatever word processor he first learned to us. For example, a lot of federal judges still use old version of word perfect, and I swear some type them in notepad That isn't random! Word perfect in the dos and early windows days heavily targeted lawyers because it had a strong markup language, the same way engineers wrote things in latex because regular word processors couldn't display formulas well. Then it got even more popular in the late 90s when it was hard (for a non technical person) to strip all the metadata stuff out of a word document. All the macros and edit history and layout stuff stayed visible in an emailed word document unless you did it right, while word perfect did not store that stuff in the file so you could not accidently over share. Like to this day word perfect is huge with lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody is paying attention to Dodd-Frank repeal because it can't be done via reconciliation and therefore will get filibustered in the Senate. The bill the House passed doesn't even pretend it's trying to get 8 democrats on board. Maybe it's a dumb question but what is reconciliation and what makes a bill qualify or not qualify for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
The "Go the gently caress home" line is actually part of Gillibrand's stump speech. She's used it at all of her public speaking events since February.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody is paying attention to Dodd-Frank repeal because it can't be done via reconciliation and therefore will get filibustered in the Senate. The bill the House passed doesn't even pretend it's trying to get 8 democrats on board. They wouldn't have passed it if it didn't have a chance of clearing the Senate in some form or fashion. We just have to wait to find out what that form or fashion is. McConnell and friends will probably make revisions to make it a little bit less horrible, enough to win over 8 Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Maybe it's a dumb question but what is reconciliation and what makes a bill qualify or not qualify for it? Reconciliation is a procedure that, once per budget year, allows you to pass a bill that the Senate cannot filibuster. However, each part of it has to be budget-related. There is a long answer why you can't do Dodd-Frank repeal by reconciliation, but the short answer is it's not being done by reconciliation because the Republicans are already using their 2 reconciliation bills on (a) obamacare repeal and (b) tax cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Maybe it's a dumb question but what is reconciliation and what makes a bill qualify or not qualify for it? Very short version: A budget process to get spending bills through the senate quickly that only requires 50 votes. It's supposed to be used when you need to quickly implement spending/budget bills from the house. You can only use it if it is: 1) A spending bill (has to involve money. No regulations) 2) Has passed the House 3) Does not increase the deficit (if it does, then any spending or tax changes automatically must sunset after 10-years)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:They wouldn't have passed it if it didn't have a chance of clearing the Senate in some form or fashion. you must not be familiar with House Republicans, noted fans of alternate realities and noted opponents of facts and math
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Star Man posted:It's like reading my mom's texts. 53% of white women voted for Trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:They wouldn't have passed it if it didn't have a chance of clearing the Senate in some form or fashion. Yes they would have, they do it all the time. Then they let the Senate work on it and essentially rewrite it, and they vote for whatever the senate sends back. Because appropriation and money based bills have to start in the House And It would be cosmically dumb politically for any Dem to play ball with the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The first charge in the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was obstruction of justice, so saying he wasn't guilty of obstruction but some painfully specific statute that amounts to obstruction is kind of a reach. yep. welcome to the world of alan dershowitz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody is paying attention to Dodd-Frank repeal because it can't be done via reconciliation and therefore will get filibustered in the Senate. The bill the House passed doesn't even pretend it's trying to get 8 democrats on board. Yeah, as of right now the Senate is pretty much hung. They can't even pass a 51 vote budget reconciliation due to defection inside of their own party. There is literally no way any of Trump's pet projects get through the senate as is once they need 60+ votes to break a fillibuster, let alone actually pass the bill. Pretty much nothing is going to be passing the senate, policy wise, in the next two years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
I have spent a non-trivial amount of time wishing/dreaming that Gillibrand hadn't worked those years representing Tobacco, because that's going to be what gets her if she went for President/VP. I've seen her in person a few times and she clearly takes the job seriously and wants to do real good for folks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Yeah, as of right now the Senate is pretty much hung. They can't even pass a 51 vote budget reconciliation due to defection inside of their own party. There is literally no way any of Trump's pet projects get through the senate as is once they need 60+ votes to break a fillibuster, let alone actually pass the bill. If Trump had a functioning brain and a functioning political party he could easily propose an infrastructure bill that would put Democrats in a really bad place and potentially get 60 votes. Fortunately, he has neither of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:Yeah, but you gotta realize that for every McGill in law there are 10 Barry Zuckerkorns. I witnessed an accident a few months back where it was obvious from the moment it happened that the at-fault party would lie in order to place blame on the car that was hit, so I stopped and gave the latter party my information for their insurance company. Sure enough, everything went down as I expected and the people I helped have had to employ an attorney to help them with their claim. I talk to them over the phone and tell them what I witnessed, and they ask if I'd sign a statement if they typed it up and mailed it out. Sure, no problem. The thing is filled with stupid typos and errors (nothing concerning the actual facts). I actually have delayed sending it back because I don't know if I'm better off signing the understandable but stupid-looking statement, or making corrections that I date and initial. I know it was just an assistant who typed it up, but it's still irritating to me that someone would send out a document for a legal case that looks like a middle-schooler failed to proof properly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Given that we're talking about Trump, I wonder what he'll tweet in response to the Republican line that he's too dumb to obstruct justice. "Knew exactly what I was doing when I told Comey to let Flynn go, then fired him!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:I witnessed an accident a few months back where it was obvious from the moment it happened that the at-fault party would lie in order to place blame on the car that was hit, so I stopped and gave the latter party my information for their insurance company. Sure enough, everything went down as I expected and the people I helped have had to employ an attorney to help them with their claim. I talk to them over the phone and tell them what I witnessed, and they ask if I'd sign a statement if they typed it up and mailed it out. Sure, no problem. the lawyers taking those cases are basically bottom-tier lawyers who function only on volume
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:08
|
|