DoSomefink.com

Politics & World Affairs => Politics & World Affairs => Topic started by: bboyle on March 22, 2017, 07:59:27 PM



Title: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on March 22, 2017, 07:59:27 PM
Seems like we are getting close, no?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on March 22, 2017, 08:42:50 PM
Racist.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Runyan99 on March 22, 2017, 08:52:56 PM
Seems like we are getting close, no?

What for?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Rother on March 22, 2017, 08:57:07 PM
Islamaphobe!


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on March 23, 2017, 12:29:03 AM
years ....fuck knows.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on March 23, 2017, 06:23:21 AM
My bet would be on the exact moment McConnell thinks Trump loses the GOP majority.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on March 23, 2017, 06:57:52 AM
If you're taking bets, I'll take the side that says no impeachment.

The idea that the GOP would start impeachment strikes me as particularly crazy.  Their own base would annihilate them faster than you can say Eric Cantor.  So from that perspective I get why you crave it, I just can't fathom why the GOP leadership would invite it.



Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Hakko on March 23, 2017, 07:51:34 AM
Shortly after Babs moves to Canada.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on March 23, 2017, 12:33:29 PM
I must admit...I would greet a Pence presidency with a deep sigh of relief. I don't agree with him on much but I'm pretty sure he won't break NATO, fuck up the EU or collude with Putin. I'm easily satisfied.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on March 23, 2017, 01:14:40 PM
Quote
break NATO

When 23 of 28 members aren't bothering to meet the 2% thresh hold on defense spending how is that our fault?  It's already broke, what's wrong with acknowledging that?
Seriously, I'm supposed to care more about going into debt to fund their defense than they are?
Nice to see the dems are willing to carry water for the MIC whenever it looks like the GOP might stumble.

Quote
fuck up the EU

Worse than the last administration tried?
"Fuck the EU" - US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland way back in 2014...
But the Ukraine gambit worked out great, right?
Jeezus wept...

"collude with Putin"

FDR was willing to 'collude' with Stalin to deal with a common threat.  Do you think less of him for that, or for having his administration riddled with Stalin's spies?  Think of, Trump is accused of what FDR did, ready to take him off the dime?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on March 23, 2017, 01:25:08 PM
Seems like we are getting close, no?


The more appropriate question is the over under on Obama or Hillary doing the perp walk in the next four years.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on March 23, 2017, 01:27:56 PM
i would team up with stalin to beat hitler... not sure how much rope i'll give putin to bomb raqqa


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on March 23, 2017, 01:30:09 PM
I think impeaching him will be real hard...

It may be he did nothing himself or even knew wtf was going on..hard to know

Flynn and manafort are lawyering up thou.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on March 23, 2017, 01:53:28 PM
i would team up with stalin to beat hitler... not sure how much rope i'll give putin to bomb raqqa

As far as bad guys go, Nazis and ISIS really seem neck and neck regarding the degree of brutality they're willing to impart on their subjects.
If ISIS had 1940s German capital behind their efforts this wouldn't be a question, but they still have that 'JV' look to some folks.  Because their capabilities are indeed relatively limited makes them less of a threat, but not really any less evil.

I'm willing to turn a blind eye to it if it stays there, and a blind eye toward Putin helping Assad put a coffin lid on it too.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on March 23, 2017, 03:41:10 PM
i would team up with stalin to beat hitler... not sure how much rope i'll give putin to bomb raqqa

As far as bad guys go, Nazis and ISIS really seem neck and neck regarding the degree of brutality they're willing to impart on their subjects.
If ISIS had 1940s German capital behind their efforts this wouldn't be a question, but they still have that 'JV' look to some folks.  Because their capabilities are indeed relatively limited makes them less of a threat, but not really any less evil.

I'm willing to turn a blind eye to it if it stays there, and a blind eye toward Putin helping Assad put a coffin lid on it too.

Well when do we reach the iron curtain moment? because if the WOT goes on forever it would follow its in their interest to keep presenting himself as the bulwark against the infidels.

and manipulating ethnics groups with-in historically anachronistic boundaries is falling off a log for this lot and russias influence in the ME is becoming wider and more manipulative

and this is important..Russia's goals in region do not require stability ie they can achieve wider geopolitical effects by keeping the region unstable which is quite a different prospect from US efforts.

a large group of US opinion have given them a pass for standing up as our defenders against evil...even when faced with the possibility they are actively destabilising your own country (perception not with standing on that i get it people can hink that is bs)

whats to stop them splitting opposition against them by keeping the war in the ME grinding on forever.... this is the whole thing people don't see about how they operate.

both acting in Syria to fight terrorism and acting to keep the war going defends other russian activities and weakens/limits the US options to manoeuvre.

the Russians fight terrorism but it never ends because it inoculates them..i'm seeing somesort of pattern here

what is the purpose of the war for Russian interests?


 
... but we derail the thread


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: ridgeway on March 23, 2017, 07:01:07 PM
i would team up with stalin to beat hitler... not sure how much rope i'll give putin to bomb raqqa

As far as bad guys go, Nazis and ISIS really seem neck and neck regarding the degree of brutality they're willing to impart on their subjects.
If ISIS had 1940s German capital behind their efforts this wouldn't be a question, but they still have that 'JV' look to some folks.  Because their capabilities are indeed relatively limited makes them less of a threat, but not really any less evil.

I'm willing to turn a blind eye to it if it stays there, and a blind eye toward Putin helping Assad put a coffin lid on it too.

Well when do we reach the iron curtain moment? because if the WOT goes on forever it would follow its in their interest to keep presenting himself as the bulwark against the infidels.

and manipulating ethnics groups with-in historically anachronistic boundaries is falling off a log for this lot and russias influence in the ME is becoming wider and more manipulative

and this is important..Russia's goals in region do not require stability ie they can achieve wider geopolitical effects by keeping the region unstable which is quite a different prospect from US efforts.

a large group of US opinion have given them a pass for standing up as our defenders against evil...even when faced with the possibility they are actively destabilising your own country (perception not with standing on that i get it people can hink that is bs)

whats to stop them splitting opposition against them by keeping the war in the ME grinding on forever.... this is the whole thing people don't see about how they operate.

both acting in Syria to fight terrorism and acting to keep the war going defends other russian activities and weakens/limits the US options to manoeuvre.

the Russians fight terrorism but it never ends because it inoculates them..i'm seeing somesort of pattern here

what is the purpose of the war for Russian interests?


 
... but we derail the thread

People seem to be forgetting that Russia is no longer a communist nation bent on world revolution.

Certainly their interests and ours do not align 100%, but I see them as no threat to anything we consider important.  Sure, they want NATO to be weaker, but I see no reason for every country bordering Russia to be a NATO member - i could give a FF about Georgia and the other Eastern neighbors, and I'd be happy for Poland et al. to be in a NATO-lite.  You have to look at the situation from the Russkies' POV -- how would we like it if China entered into a mutual defense treaty with Canada and Mexico?

I would analogize 2017 Russia to Pinochet's Chile.  A not-so-nice guy at the helm, but at least he can be helpful in some things.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on March 24, 2017, 09:23:19 AM
putinism and eurasianism is basically the modern reconstruction of the sphere of influence of the warsaw pact on post-modern steroids

the term fimnland-sation is tame in their ambitions but the sort of aims they have. that involves undermining democratic institutions to the extent they are kleptocratic organs open to direct influence.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on March 24, 2017, 01:09:41 PM
You know who's been really quiet for weeks now? Michael Flynn. Watch that space.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on March 24, 2017, 01:12:28 PM
Quote
and this is important..Russia's goals in region do not require stability ie they can achieve wider geopolitical effects by keeping the region unstable which is quite a different prospect from US efforts.

I couldn't look at what has happened in the ME over the last 25 years and surmise that 'stability' was a US goal.
How do you?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on March 24, 2017, 01:13:58 PM
Quote
that involves undermining democratic institutions to the extent they are kleptocratic organs open to direct influence.

When did we pivot to Goldman Sachs?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 03, 2017, 06:39:54 PM
You know who's been really quiet for weeks now? Michael Flynn. Watch that space.

Where's my door prize?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Hakko on April 04, 2017, 05:32:13 AM
Has he said anything?   Other than, via Covington and Burling, "Immunity please." Which is pretty much the tasty char-grilled filling of a nothingburger, as what fool would speak to Congress or the Feds w/o immunity these days.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 06:16:43 AM
His lawyer tried to get immunity privately with the committees and the FBI. Both said no. That's the important data point.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 04, 2017, 08:27:38 AM
His lawyer tried to get immunity privately with the committees and the FBI. Both said no. That's the important data point.

The data point is good lawyer, certainly not what you're implying.

But keep trying.



Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 08:38:58 AM
I know actual expertise isn't held for much on the interwebs but I'll take the opinion of the prosecutors I know over yours.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 04, 2017, 09:35:50 AM
Quote
that involves undermining democratic institutions to the extent they are kleptocratic organs open to direct influence.

When did we pivot to Goldman Sachs?

well i suppose the answer is make it worse.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 04, 2017, 10:18:41 AM
I know actual expertise isn't held for much on the interwebs but I'll take the opinion of the prosecutors I know over yours.

Right... that's why you're posting here.....


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 11:29:37 AM
What....you think people who post here can't know prosecutors? You realize I've lived in DC for decades, right?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 04, 2017, 12:29:02 PM
What....you think people who post here can't know prosecutors? You realize I've lived in DC for decades, right?

1 800 Ask Gary doesn't count.







Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 01:28:37 PM
You should hesitate to judge other people's orbit by the apogee of your own.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Lars on April 04, 2017, 01:32:12 PM
btw, did they ever get that gal from the IRS who pleaded the 5th?

Wouldn't get your hopes up on Flynn, bboyle.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 01:40:52 PM
Flynn's has multiple problems beyond the direct contacts with Russia where it's not clear he violated the law anyway. His payments from Turkey, his payments from RT that he didn't declare and belated FARA filing are where I expect he will get into trouble. In addition, the FBI didn't tell his lawyer to come back to discuss immunity...the FBI refused it outright. That's a very bad sign. And his lawyer going public wasn't exactly a shot across the bows of Jim Comey. It puts on pressure on him at all. It was a shot across the bow of anyone who his testimony could hurt. 



Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Lars on April 04, 2017, 02:42:49 PM
So he takes the 5th and maybe takes the fall for his own other failings.  Fail to see how this leads to a Trump impeachment.

Btw, maybe that's why the FBI won't give him immunity. They know he doesn't know squat about Trump, just wants cover for some other peccadillo.  Been beating the wife or somfink.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Hakko on April 04, 2017, 03:09:00 PM
Maybe they're afraid that if they give him immunity, he'll pull an Ollie North. And wouldn't that be fun?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 04:28:08 PM
That's absolutely why the committees aren't jumping. They gave it to North before they understood the full scope of what he had done.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 04:29:01 PM
Lurker,

I'm skeptical impeachment will happen. I expect more like an administration that's a lame duck in it's second year.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 04, 2017, 05:07:33 PM
You should hesitate to judge other people's orbit by the apogee of your own.

Posting "I know people" on some obscure blog certainly means you are in outer space....I agree with that?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 04, 2017, 06:56:49 PM
You think this blog is obscure?

In other news:

https://www.ft.com/content/40498d94-155b-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Hakko on April 04, 2017, 07:37:08 PM
You think this blog is obscure?

In other news:

https://www.ft.com/content/40498d94-155b-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Paywalled


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Lurkur on April 05, 2017, 05:29:17 AM
Lurker,

I'm skeptical impeachment will happen. I expect more like an administration that's a lame duck in it's second year.

So the question becomes whether that's a bug or a feature.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 05, 2017, 05:59:48 AM
Lurker,

I'm skeptical impeachment will happen. I expect more like an administration that's a lame duck in it's second year.

So the question becomes whether that's a bug or a feature.

mixed bag. reworking running the country around a dysfunctional but contained admin would probably introduce a new myriad of corrupt practices on one hand while streamlining bureaucracy on the other.

people often go on how corrupt Washington and gubment is but fail to really get how much worse it could get.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: rleete on April 05, 2017, 06:22:01 AM
Lurker,

I'm skeptical impeachment will happen. I expect more like an administration that's a lame duck in it's second year.

So the question becomes whether that's a bug or a feature.

Quoted for truth.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 05, 2017, 06:27:52 AM
Lurker,

I'm skeptical impeachment will happen. I expect more like an administration that's a lame duck in it's second year.

So the question becomes whether that's a bug or a feature.

We haven't experienced a serious crisis with the President powerless and out to lunch since 1861. The historical record suggests the last time didn't go well.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Wolfpack on April 05, 2017, 08:17:12 AM
Considering how much power the presidency has usurped from the other branches of government since the Civil War, is having a president stripped of a good bit of power really a bad thing?  Most of our checks and balances went by the wayside a good while back, so long as they weren't TOO obvious about it.  The trick would be making sure that the next president wasn't able to simply come in and pick up where the past few have left off.  That would be the impossible dream though, since both sides are so sure their guy (or gal) will be the next president, that making sure constitutional checks are put back into place is the furthest thing from their mind. 

If it does nothing else, a Trump presidency that makes congress at least consider picking up some of the power they've abrogated to the presidency over the past 150 years wouldn't be a bad thing would it?  Not that the congress is any great panacea, but at least it's not a single figure making all the decisions.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 05, 2017, 09:00:34 AM
Considering how much power the presidency has usurped from the other branches of government since the Civil War, is having a president stripped of a good bit of power really a bad thing?  Most of our checks and balances went by the wayside a good while back, so long as they weren't TOO obvious about it.  The trick would be making sure that the next president wasn't able to simply come in and pick up where the past few have left off.  That would be the impossible dream though, since both sides are so sure their guy (or gal) will be the next president, that making sure constitutional checks are put back into place is the furthest thing from their mind. 

If it does nothing else, a Trump presidency that makes congress at least consider picking up some of the power they've abrogated to the presidency over the past 150 years wouldn't be a bad thing would it?  Not that the congress is any great panacea, but at least it's not a single figure making all the decisions.

its the manner you put in place to achieve it that brings judgement.

and its also this after the fact silver lining argument that is frankly reckless face saving.

its disturbing.

is the congress ready to take up the slack in a transparent and less venal manner?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 06, 2017, 10:08:49 AM
Yep...this isn't a controlled and thought out devolution of presidential power (which I would be strongly in favor of), this is simply a power vacuum punctuated by periodic over reach. When you are a nuclear power and the world's leading treaty state, that's a really dangerous thing. 


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 06, 2017, 10:56:39 AM
is the pentagon (mattis) conducting a soft coup by backing Jared against Bannon and controlling trumps access to information and advice to a channel they create via Kushner?

its not impossible.

you marginalise the nutty components heap all the responsibility into one stream and deny them access as trump has a hard on for his son-in-law and he himself has fuck all insight to what's going on anyway.

then you just wait it out till the next election cycle hoping you can hold it down?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 06, 2017, 11:14:54 AM
you just cut away anyone dangerous from under trump , leave him in the prez position and sock puppet Jared.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 06, 2017, 12:07:49 PM
I don't think it's much more than the usual dynamic...the people who know who to do things and get them done become the power players in any administration. While Tillerson is trying to figure out where the bathroom is and Bannon is contemplating his imagined resemblance to Thomas Cromwell, Mattis is using the professional staff to make lots of things happen. And he's doing it with virtually no controversy.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 06, 2017, 12:13:21 PM
amounts to the same thing

pretty much


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 06, 2017, 05:54:01 PM
When you are a nuclear power and the world's leading treaty bomb throwing state, that's a really dangerous thing.



Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 07, 2017, 08:53:51 AM
When you are a nuclear power and the world's leading treaty bomb throwing state, that's a really dangerous thing.



makes it even more imperative you don't vote in a dysfunctional crowd of dickheads then doesn't it.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 07, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
makes it even more imperative you don't vote in a dysfunctional crowd of dickheads then doesn't it.

Quite, too bad that is never actually the option...



Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 07, 2017, 03:42:04 PM
Quote
And  yet another act of war without a vote in congress. This was not some pressing emergency, it could wait. But nope, the unhealthy trend continues. Impeach the guy for that, not the spurious claims heard so far.

Yes!  Let's see it happen.  See Paul and the Freedom Caucus align with the partisan Dems to impeach him for this very reason.

You onboard, bboyle?  Or is this kind of stuff ok as long as its 'your' guy tossing the bombs?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 07, 2017, 08:03:50 PM
I don't think this single strike rises to the level of requiring a vote. That said, we should have clearly voted for force or not on our ME military actions over all. That applies to Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump. 


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 08, 2017, 12:58:27 PM
Uh we did for Bush 2.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 08, 2017, 01:11:40 PM
Congress authorized Bush I in his war with Iraq as well.

It's the Democrats that haven't bothered since dragging us into Korea.

Funny how that works...


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 08, 2017, 05:53:51 PM
Gladly open to correction on this but it's always been my understanding that the Bush AUMF was specifically written to apply to 9/11 related terrorism but in practice was used to authorize everything else.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 08, 2017, 06:12:29 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution)

Forgot Hillary and basically every dem presidential aspirant voted in favor?

I guess it has been awhile...


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 09, 2017, 02:16:43 PM
"Alex, I'll take Partisan Knee Jerk Reactions for $500."


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 09, 2017, 02:47:15 PM
So the Democrats refusing to abide by the war powers resolution is partisan?  Why?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 09, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 11, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Um....

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/851962772007133184


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 12, 2017, 04:41:03 AM
Um....

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/851962772007133184

well its hardly breaking news.





Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Hakko on April 12, 2017, 05:34:22 AM
Um....

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/851962772007133184

well its hardly breaking news.





I'm reminded of the old adage about DAs and ham sandwiches. Rejection rate of FISA requests lower than that of Tom Cruise in a San Francisco bath house (allegedly).


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 12, 2017, 06:06:54 AM
Bit of a myth, that:

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 12, 2017, 06:44:21 AM
he is a malleable asset who got moved around the board...the guy is total loon..

even if he did think he had a contract out on him

who walked him into the trump campaign.?..my bet is manaford,

wouldn't be surprised that its true trump hardly knew who he was.

they were staffing up in a hurry...lets just slip a few characters in there    who needs vetting with flynn on your and turkeys and russias payroll.

his front company office is the the building next to trump tower...you can't make this stuff up, the side entrance went to a office in camp street new orleans.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 12, 2017, 08:15:05 AM
Bit of a myth, that:

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/

As I read that article what it really says is 'why yes FISA warrants are overwhelming approved but it's because the government asks for the warrants (it's all a process question really).  And the government always has a compelling reason to ask....don't believe the government, well, just ask them.'






Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 12, 2017, 08:22:04 AM
The gist is that there is a fair amount of work that happens before a warrant is requested and that warrants that don't look like they will stand up are discarded before the request happens. You can agree or disagree but it's worth taking a deeper look than just looking at one number and making a global judgement.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 12, 2017, 09:30:00 AM
The gist is that there is a fair amount of work that happens before a warrant is requested and that warrants that don't look like they will stand up are discarded before the request happens. You can agree or disagree but it's worth taking a deeper look than just looking at one number and making a global judgement.

I get it; the government gets what it wants.

Heck, according to the article, even Obama wanted to change that.

But, lets be fair, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUDDEN SUPPORT FOR THE FISA COURT.

This has to do with Obama Admin using the FISA court as a pretext to spy on Trump and those chickens coming home to roost.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 12, 2017, 09:53:44 AM
I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 12, 2017, 09:56:12 AM
LOL...what about my support for the FISA court is sudden?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 12, 2017, 10:12:27 AM
LOL...what about my support for the FISA court is sudden?

That it's all above board and see there really must be something if FISA granted a warrant.

Pre-emption, I believe it's called.



Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 12, 2017, 02:19:26 PM
their lack of desire to open up to independent enquiry and general attempts to derail the investigations has guilty written all over it..

speculation

yes

wtf are they trying to cover up.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 12, 2017, 06:23:26 PM
I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 12, 2017, 06:25:36 PM
Oh, dear:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump.html?_r=0


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: bboyle on April 12, 2017, 06:31:02 PM
I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


We disagree on this only in degree, not substance. Presidents should be required to get authorization from Congress except under clearly stipulated and limited conditions. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is at all motivated to responsibly deal with this issue when their own party is in power.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Soddball on April 12, 2017, 10:55:28 PM
Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: mididoctors on April 13, 2017, 04:07:58 AM
Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 

could be argued he can steer federal funds into the generals agenda thou..

but yeah the analogy only stretches so far.

we have to contend with the idea of something new that has its own dynamics.

same is true of the new authoritarian democracies we see being established.  this is a new mode of tyranny that is very difficult to pin down and counter due to its constantly shifting identity and use of new media.

at some point we have to come up with new definitions.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 13, 2017, 06:59:59 AM
I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


We disagree on this only in degree, not substance. Presidents should be required to get authorization from Congress except under clearly stipulated and limited conditions. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is at all motivated to responsibly deal with this issue when their own party is in power.

The above is true only to a point.  No POTUS, of any party, will cede POTUS power to Congress.  Congress, for many reasons (our guy in power and we don't want to cripple him, fecklessness or not really wanting to be the ones who stop a POTUS from taking action because POTUS can then blame Congress on any bad stuff..the finger pointing game) is not empowered with Executive Powers. 

You want to take the first step toward empowering Congress?  Repeal the direct election of Senators.  Make the State Legislatures/State Executive appoint Senators.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Hakko on April 13, 2017, 08:37:23 AM
I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


We disagree on this only in degree, not substance. Presidents should be required to get authorization from Congress except under clearly stipulated and limited conditions. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is at all motivated to responsibly deal with this issue when their own party is in power.

The above is true only to a point.  No POTUS, of any party, will cede POTUS power to Congress.  Congress, for many reasons (our guy in power and we don't want to cripple him, fecklessness or not really wanting to be the ones who stop a POTUS from taking action because POTUS can then blame Congress on any bad stuff..the finger pointing game) is not empowered with Executive Powers. 

You want to take the first step toward empowering Congress?  Repeal the direct election of Senators.  Make the State Legislatures/State Executive appoint Senators.

I'm down with that.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 23, 2017, 06:57:35 PM
Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 

I'm trying to fathom a scenario where the President tells the Chairman of the JCS to bomb country X and is told, "No, you don't pay my salary."

Members of Congress can't do that.  No one else can do that.  Makes them effectively 'his' in my book.

When Clinton openly and wantonly violated the stipulations of the War Powers resolution (namely, not ending combat when he failed to get Congressional authorization within 30 days of initiating hostilities (and then he even carried on beyond the additional 30 days the President is given to extricate forces - in this case, quit launching bombers)) it left me wondering if a President would ever bother again in my lifetime.  Bush II did, but our Nobel Prize winner decided the 2001 AUMF was actually open season on nation on earth he wanted to bomb, and he acted accordingly.

How do we rein this in?


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Soddball on April 24, 2017, 09:25:43 AM
If we take the Roman Empire as an analogy, you can't.  The senate becomes weaker and less effective and the Emperor and his dynasty rules until the Huns and Goths set fire to everything.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 24, 2017, 09:57:43 AM
Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 

I'm trying to fathom a scenario where the President tells the Chairman of the JCS to bomb country X and is told, "No, you don't pay my salary."


In order to refuse an officer has to prove (and note the burden is upon the person rejecting the order) that the order was unlawful.  Or, the officer has to resign...that's it, no other options.
You don't want the military saying 'nah, we're not doing that'.....that slope won't end where you think it will.

Quote
Members of Congress can't do that.  No one else can do that.  Makes them effectively 'his' in my book.

Not true at all; Congress has the power of the purse...which can lead to impeachment and removal from office for doing 'unfunded' stuff.

Quote
When Clinton openly and wantonly violated the stipulations of the War Powers resolution (namely, not ending combat when he failed to get Congressional authorization within 30 days of initiating hostilities (and then he even carried on beyond the additional 30 days the President is given to extricate forces - in this case, quit launching bombers)) it left me wondering if a President would ever bother again in my lifetime.  Bush II did, but our Nobel Prize winner decided the 2001 AUMF was actually open season on nation on earth he wanted to bomb, and he acted accordingly.

See above for the answer.

Quote
How do we rein this in?

Right now YOU directly elect your representatives (both in the House and Senate).  The fault, Dear Seminole, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 24, 2017, 10:56:31 AM
Quote
Not true at all; Congress has the power of the purse...which can lead to impeachment and removal from office for doing 'unfunded' stuff

I meant McCain can't order bombers into Syria, no matter how badly he wants it.

I'm trying to remember the last time Congress told the president he couldn't bomb somewhere because they bought those bombs for some other purpose.

Each election the choice seems to always be Kang or Kodos. American people voted for Bush when he said no more nation building. Then they voted for Obama and even the Nobel fell hook, line, and sinker for that stinker. Then we vote in the guy who says no more stupid wars, why are we borrowing with no end in site to protect first world nations, and even said the president would be making a mistake to bomb Syria without congressional approval.

American voter keeps thinking they have options, but the only option is always more of the same.

I think Butler was right, only real way to stop this shit is to conscript capital. The rich would put an end to this if it cost them money instead of made them money.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 24, 2017, 01:14:09 PM
Bombs are not bought for other purposes; however Congress can say 'spend no money doing X Y or Z.'

Happens all the time; the DoD name for funds like that is 'fenced funds.' 

The larger issue is POTUS has Commander in Chief powers.  However, Congress can impeach and remove from office for about any issue they want:  High Crimes and Misdemeanors has never, IIRC, been defined.

Impeachment and removal is a political act/ not a legal one.

Flip he coin:  POTUS could be removed for failure to act as well.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: Seminole on April 24, 2017, 06:49:32 PM
Bombs are not bought for other purposes; however Congress can say 'spend no money doing X Y or Z.'

I think that interpretation turns the express intent of the law on its head. It is the perogative of the Congress to declare what wars we will have, not to declare what wars we won't have and then leave the president to whip up any not thusly forbidden.


Title: Re: Over/Under on Impeachment
Post by: dfgardner on April 25, 2017, 04:38:20 AM
Then you don't understand how funding actually works.