|
Jan. 6 Hearings: Oil chat.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:The government should send checks to people. Again. They can do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Not with this Congress they can't. Solutions have to be attainable, we can no more force Manchin to bargain than we can OPEC. We can have the CIA overthrow Manchin and install a friendly puppet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:The government should send checks to people. Again. They can do that. (that's just off the top of my head, I'm not an expert but I bet the experts can think of even better ideas, that's what we pay them for). And OPEC shrugs, waits for a week, then triples the price of oil the following week. In real business that game doesn't work. It's bluff for bluff until someone folds or runs out of money. In GQP world, they know all the R representatives will fold instantly because the party will shun them if they even frown toward their facist dictator, and they can't switch to the other party because it's not accepting applications from lynch mob members right now. It's the same with every lawyer T has had. They parrot whatever whacko idea he read on the back of the toilet paper that morning because they want to keep their jobs too, and it's easier to smile and nod. T, Jordan, McConnell, DeSantis, don't even suffer questions about potential alternatives. "They. Are. Correct." So I guess tomorrow we'll see if Clarence has any integrity left?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:What work would that be, do you figure? In theory they can ban export of American oil, but I don't think that would stand up in court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:In theory they can ban export of American oil, but I don't think that would stand up in court. It was the law of the land from 1975 - 2015 https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban The crude oil export ban prohibited most crude oil exports from the United States to other countries. It was implemented in 1975 and lifted in December 2015. Due to an increased use of hydraulic fracturing—also known as fracking—and horizontal drilling beginning in 2005, the United States increased its production of oil and natural gas. Opponents of the ban argued repealing it would increase job growth and domestic energy production. Proponents of the ban argued that its repeal could lead to higher domestic gasoline prices and negatively affect jobs at U.S. refineries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
One would think that at the level and resources the Biden Admin is operating at, (not to mention the U.S. Security State) that they have at least a few Rubicon-esque working groups grinding away on problems like America's energy requirements, and that those groups have already considered any idea on "how to lower gas prices" that a cadre of far too online American politics binge watchers might come up with. Then again the Trump Administration did such a brutal, no trigger warning, "Emperor has no clothes" reveal on the Executive branch, who really knows at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:No American political party can tell OPEC what to do, and so I don't see the levers to operate to achieve your #1 stated goal, there. They can release some strategic reserve but that's about it, I think; and that does gently caress-all. OPEC is just a bunch of minor powers blessed with resources. None of them except Iran even have a real military or a defensible position at all. The executive has a LOT of levers with places like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 07:10
|
|
|
slurm posted:OPEC is just a bunch of minor powers blessed with resources. None of them except Iran even have a real military or a defensible position at all. The executive has a LOT of levers with places like that. Tell us more what you learned from playing Command and Conquer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 07:14
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Tell us more what you learned from playing Command and Conquer. Ants are WAY more dangerous than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 08:20
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Tell us more what you learned from playing Command and Conquer. At its most gracious interpretation, I sure hope slurm means that Saudi Arabia is highly dependent on the US for military equipment and support and we could easily cut that off and indeed Congress is already champing at the bit to cut off arms sales to KSA. The majority of their most advanced systems are US and it's not as if you could just easily shift an entire military over to another supplier with completely different systems without massive investment/time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 08:47
|
|
|
V-Men posted:At its most gracious interpretation, I sure hope slurm means that Saudi Arabia is highly dependent on the US for military equipment and support and we could easily cut that off and indeed Congress is already champing at the bit to cut off arms sales to KSA. The majority of their most advanced systems are US and it's not as if you could just easily shift an entire military over to another supplier with completely different systems without massive investment/time. Especially since the Russian arms market has been destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 10:20
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Tell us more what you learned from playing Command and Conquer. Naval units must be carefully balanced so as not to force players into overcommitting to early building paths or to be unusable niche tools that fail to interact with the rest of the map and also there should be mind-controlled giant squid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Drakyn posted:Naval units must be carefully balanced so as not to force players into overcommitting to early building paths or to be unusable niche tools that fail to interact with the rest of the map and also there should be mind-controlled giant squid. Basically. The soviets were really hamstrung by not having a land-attacking naval unit (especially on the missions to destroy the refueling station on the islands, where there is one tiny bottle-necked landing area so you need just enough subs to take out the ships and then defend against incoming cruisers while throwing most of the rest into MiGs). At least until aftermath when they get missile subs and hooboy do they rock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
V-Men posted:At its most gracious interpretation, I sure hope slurm means that Saudi Arabia is highly dependent on the US for military equipment and support and we could easily cut that off and indeed Congress is already champing at the bit to cut off arms sales to KSA. The majority of their most advanced systems are US and it's not as if you could just easily shift an entire military over to another supplier with completely different systems without massive investment/time. Yeah I mean it's a sliding scale from the no-brainer of "stop hugely subsidizing our enemies" all the way through to the "full Saddam" (which is a bad idea) but you can't say there's not options. Edit: but this is better for USCE where it's already being discussed. slurm fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
DOJ, "the petition should be denied". https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A283/242851/20221011154717435_22A283%20USA%20stay%20opp.pdf The summary is only the first few pages. Everything after that is a review of facts. Ultimately, T claims irreparable harm but does not indicate what that harm is, district courts have no power over federal investigations and issues are resolved when charges are filed, the petition doesn't offer any explanations against the reasoning of the appeals court, and doesn't show that the appeals court erred. Plus several reasons why the petition is confused about what the appeals court can do (ie rule on the special master). Impressive that they write content instead of just saying, "Applicant whines loudly but offers no substantive arguments".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:DOJ, "the petition should be denied". https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A283/242851/20221011154717435_22A283%20USA%20stay%20opp.pdf 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
We've seen a bunch of evidence now that Trump still has documents at at least one other location, potentially more - why have they not tried to go and get them while this other stuff is going through the courts? I cant imagine Trumps advisors arent using this time to get him to hide or destroy them and make them harder to obtain...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:We've seen a bunch of evidence now that Trump still has documents at at least one other location, potentially more - why have they not tried to go and get them while this other stuff is going through the courts? I cant imagine Trumps advisors arent using this time to get him to hide or destroy them and make them harder to obtain... The places and people they have under surveillance? gently caress yeah, do some more crimes. Let’s see how that dance turns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
Gotta make sure the trap works before you set it again. If you get all the docs now and the court decides 'the method was illegal' or whatever the gently caress, you lose everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Last time they legally went after Trump for what should’ve been the “dump this idiot” point every single Republican got mega bolstered, they’re probably going to wait until after the midterms now.
Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
So what you're really saying is that the fastest way to get DoublePeach in prison is to leave a few classified folders in plain sight in the cell? Fishing for Trump with classified docs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
You always wonder if these institutions really are as adept as one would expect them to be or if those expectations are unrealistic and perhaps colored by fiction. People have suggested that Garland traced every foreign agent and leak that could have come into contact with the documents before even launching the mar-a-lago raid to ensure that they didn't get away. I wonder how likely that is vs. the substantially less Clancy-esque, more banal alternative where it just took forever for Garland to get a warrant. Trump having material as sensitive as nuclear secrets completely unsecured, practically stuffed in his couch cushions, for over a year while DOJ just slowly worked their way to a warrant as the docs sat there, with any foreign asset capable of walking in at any time, seems to leave a hell of a lot to chance. One wonders how that kind of material being in the open isn't grounds for immediately calling in a SWAT team. Geopolitics suddenly turns into Russian Roulette if the wrong actors get the wrong documents, which isn't all that hard with modern tech. No need to "smuggle out the microfilm" when you can just snapchat MBS or Xi on your smartphone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Geopolitics suddenly turns into Russian Roulette if the wrong actors get the wrong documents, which isn't all that hard with modern tech. No need to "smuggle out the microfilm" when you can just snapchat MBS or Xi on your smartphone. The whole internet is really compromised by the US government, I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing gets automatically recognized and reported the same way known csam does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/12/maralago-witness-trump-boxes-moved/ The footage shows them moving boxes containing government documents after the subpoena. A "trump employee" told the FBI they were instructed to move them, by T, who "told people to move boxes to his residence at the property". Additional testimony that multiple people told T to cooperate with NARA but he refused. Strong case of defying the subpoenae.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/12/maralago-witness-trump-boxes-moved/ I feel like the DOJ and others are waiting to see how the midterms shake out before heading back in full force, and the feed of info is meant to keep people aware of the stakes. I certainly hope it works, because there are some crazy bastards all over the ballot, and we know they will try to kill this as soon as they get a chance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
E: wrong thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:I feel like the DOJ and others are waiting to see how the midterms shake out before heading back in full force, and the feed of info is meant to keep people aware of the stakes. I certainly hope it works, because there are some crazy bastards all over the ballot, and we know they will try to kill this as soon as they get a chance. I don't know if they waiting to see how the midterms go or just waiting for the midterms to be over. DOJ still does the decorum BS, and as we saw during the Russia investigation they don't dont do anything publicly during election time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I don't know if they waiting to see how the midterms go or just waiting for the midterms to be over. DOJ still does the decorum BS, and as we saw during the Russia investigation they don't dont do anything publicly during election time. Slow walking a prosecution due to political concerns should be obstruction of justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Slow walking a prosecution due to political concerns should be obstruction of justice. My dude, Trump straight up confessed to obstruction and didn't get charged with obstruction it apparently just isn't a thing when it comes to him, on either side
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/12/maralago-witness-trump-boxes-moved/ Is there actual footage there? I didn't manage to get past the paywall though it used to work before?? Anyway that sound pretty bad (for Trump), let's see him try to wiggle out of this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:03
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Is there actual footage there? I didn't manage to get past the paywall though it used to work before?? The footage is referred to by the source, wapo doesn't have it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Slow walking a prosecution due to political concerns should be obstruction of justice. lol this would result in so much stupid bullshit in practice, it's an absolutely insane solution
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:lol this would result in so much stupid bullshit in practice, it's an absolutely insane solution Perhaps some sort of system in which prosecutions and trials can only take a maximum of three days? Just to spitball.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Perhaps some sort of system in which prosecutions and trials can only take a maximum of three days? Just to spitball. That would be a huge boon to conmen and white-collar criminals whose crimes are complicated and take a long time to present and clarify to a jury. People like Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Perhaps some sort of system in which prosecutions and trials can only take a maximum of three days? Just to spitball. And somebody has to be convicted by the end of that time. A not-guilty verdict requires supplying someone else to wear the blame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That would be a huge boon to conmen and white-collar criminals whose crimes are complicated and take a long time to present and clarify to a jury. People like Donald Trump. It is an Ace Attorney joke, where it is explicitly a terrible system designed to make things harder on the player.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Clarste posted:It is an Ace Attorney joke, where it is explicitly a terrible system designed to make things harder on the player. I thought it was supposed to mirror the Japanese justice system somewhat, which is it’s own flavor of crazy shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I thought it was supposed to mirror the Japanese justice system somewhat, which is it’s own flavor of crazy shitshow. Japanese trials are not limited to only three days, no. The average trial length is three months from start to final ruling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
It sounds like the deal with Japan's 99.8% conviction rate at trial is that what we'd consider a trial actually happens earlier - when the prosecutor chooses to prosecute - and what we'd consider a jury is really just the prosecutor. Less than 10% of cases are actually prosecuted, so only the most cast-iron of cases actually get to a trial. Japanese prosecutors have a ton of power and losing a case is very damaging to them, so they basically never lose, instead stacking the deck in their favour pre-trial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 11:18
|
|
