I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know if that's right and suspect it isn't, but you changed the subject.

It was stupid to talk to them. It compromised them, giving the Russian the ability to blackmail them at the very least. It also looks terrible and opens them to the shitstorm they are currently experiencing, where the press secretary has to go out and argue that the chairman of the campaign wasn't really involved in the campaign.

You asked who wouldn't have talked to the Russian. The answer is anyone who is remotely professional, regardless of whether the talking alone is illegal.

Read the rest of what I wrote, where I agreed with you. Talking to them was a risk. If done correctly, however, it's worth taking.

It's all in how you circumvent the law. Kind of like taxes: Byzantine avoidance, fine; The simplest evasion, bad.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Bourbon. A Makers Manhattan, to be specific.

But what I meant was more leverage (1) compared to later - if you don't filibuster now, you will never filibuster, and (2) thanks to Chairman Nunes' curious actions, holding firm on Gorsuch may result in a deal to get a select committee appointed that will actually investigate the Russian mess. If Schumer is interested in a deal, that's more palatable then the trial balloon floated yesterday of agreeing to not filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for some magic beans and whispered sweet nothings from Mitch like "of course you can filibuster the next nominee" and "of course I'll still respect you in the morning."

Oh, and Sebby - there is a real possibility of criminal exposure for Manafort - he wasn't registered as a foreign lobbyist when he was getting $10 million a year to "promote Putin." There may also be some wire fraud re the deal he is getting sued on in the Caymans.

Plus let's not forget the potential of him and others of having been less than truthful when answering questions under oath or to the FBI (ask Martha Stewart about that).

I was thinking common law, or treason. But you're right. There's definitely a statutory violation somewhere.

The fed crime code isn't thicker than your most obese great aunt for no reason. The only question is whether one is a worthy target. Once they decide to spend the money on prosecuting, finding the law you've violated is the easiest part.

If you can't charge 90% of America with some crime at any given moment provided the liberal scope of that fishnet "code," you need to relearn English.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wonking, but this is getting awfully close to criminal conspiracy.

No doubt. It's a fine line, but at this level, you've solid players. Manafort could go down in a plea for some statutory violation. But the only guy I could conceive them getting on a meaty charge is Stone. His public announcement in 2016 that he was no longer formally connected with the campaign was pathetic. "I'm the next G. Gordon Liddy" would've been more appropriate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

But what if they mount a filibuster, and then McConnell goes nuclear? The only way the Dems win the war is if Trump, or the GOP, doesn't get a second term. Otherwise there are likely a few more seats open and SCOTUS is packed for a generation. Only way Schumer wins is if the Dems win in 2020. And given that they couldn't even beat Donald Freaking Trump.....

They should do a grand compromise. (Yes, this is total fantasy.) Kennedy and Ginsburg should retire at the same time. Ginsburg's seat should be given to Garland. Kennedy's, the swing, should be subject to a fight.

Yeah, i know, Garland's a but too moderate to qualify as a 1:1 replacement for Ginsburg. But hey -- he's the guy Obama picked. He gets the seat in any such compromise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Bourbon. A Makers Manhattan, to be specific.

But what I meant was more leverage (1) compared to later - if you don't filibuster now, you will never filibuster, and (2) thanks to Chairman Nunes' curious actions, holding firm on Gorsuch may result in a deal to get a select committee appointed that will actually investigate the Russian mess. If Schumer is interested in a deal, that's more palatable then the trial balloon floated yesterday of agreeing to not filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for some magic beans and whispered sweet nothings from Mitch like "of course you can filibuster the next nominee" and "of course I'll still respect you in the morning."

Oh, and Sebby - there is a real possibility of criminal exposure for Manafort - he wasn't registered as a foreign lobbyist when he was getting $10 million a year to "promote Putin." There may also be some wire fraud re the deal he is getting sued on in the Caymans.

Plus let's not forget the potential of him and others of having been less than truthful when answering questions under oath or to the FBI (ask Martha Stewart about that).

The Republicans will never let a Democratic minority block a Supreme Court nominee. A Republican nominee who can win a Republican majority will get confirmed. So Schumer has no leverage at all. His question is how to play this for his own benefit. As McConnell understands, Supreme Court nominations are something the base really cares about, so Schumer can use it to fire Democrats up for 2018. It's not much, but it's something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But the only guy I could conceive them getting on a meaty charge is Stone.

I know this is going to sound like crazy talk, but bear with me. It's possible that there are things that happened -- and could be proven in a court of law, for example -- but which haven't been reported yet.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Bourbon. A Makers Manhattan, to be specific.

Good choice.

But what I meant was more leverage (1) compared to later - if you don't filibuster now, you will never filibuster, and (2) thanks to Chairman Nunes' curious actions, holding firm on Gorsuch may result in a deal to get a select committee appointed that will actually investigate the Russian mess. If Schumer is interested in a deal, that's more palatable then the trial balloon floated yesterday of agreeing to not filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for some magic beans and whispered sweet nothings from Mitch like "of course you can filibuster the next nominee" and "of course I'll still respect you in the morning."

Filibuster now. Fillibuster forever.

Oh, and Sebby - there is a real possibility of criminal exposure for Manafort - he wasn't registered as a foreign lobbyist when he was getting $10 million a year to "promote Putin." There may also be some wire fraud re the deal he is getting sued on in the Caymans.

Plus let's not forget the potential of him and others of having been less than truthful when answering questions under oath or to the FBI (ask Martha Stewart about that).

Witness dead.
http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/03/2...ust-shot-dead/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Read the rest of what I wrote, where I agreed with you.

You can rest assured that I read everything you wrote.

If done correctly, however, it's worth taking.

It's not. You're not grappling with the espionage aspect.

By the way, the contrast between your predictions of Clinton indictments and confidence of Global Initiative shadiness contrasts pretty starkly with your certainty there's nothing to this Russia business. You're quite the independent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Republicans will never let a Democratic minority block a Supreme Court nominee. A Republican nominee who can win a Republican majority will get confirmed. So Schumer has no leverage at all. His question is how to play this for his own benefit. As McConnell understands, Supreme Court nominations are something the base really cares about, so Schumer can use it to fire Democrats up for 2018. It's not much, but it's something.

Right. A successful filibuster (now or in the future) means the GOP doesn't have 51 votes to change the rules to kill the filibuster. Which means that the GOP doesn't have 51 votes to confirm the judge being filibustered. Which means the filibuster only has protest/political value to the Dems as long as they believe the GOP will go nuclear, which they will.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know this is going to sound like crazy talk, but bear with me. It's possible that there are things that happened -- and could be proven in a court of law, for example -- but which haven't been reported yet.

Um, what part of "there's no there there" do you not understand?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Judge Bork was, um, Borked, true - but the Judiciary Committee had hearings and the full Senate voted on his nomination. He lost. Was opposition to him based on politics? You bet. But that has always been the case - the Federalist-controlled Senate refused to confirm Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice because he opposed the Jay Treaty.

But I do agree that calling it the Garland Seat is a bit of a misnomer. He might not have been confirmed had the Senate actually had hearings and voted on his nomination.

We clearly dodged a bullet with Bork. Whatever you think of the process, he was cray.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know this is going to sound like crazy talk, but bear with me. It's possible that there are things that happened -- and could be proven in a court of law, for example -- but which haven't been reported yet.

Everyone agrees that this sort of thing needs further scrutiny:

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know this is going to sound like crazy talk, but bear with me. It's possible that there are things that happened -- and could be proven in a court of law, for example -- but which haven't been reported yet.

Look, as long as we're going to investigate whether Obama put a tapp on Trump in Trump Towers and who the leakers are that are golden showering all the administration's super top secret stuff about Trump raging that Ryan can't do squat, we might as well investigate things like people in the administration actually working on the payroll of foreign powers while purportedly acting in official capacities.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

But I do agree that calling it the Garland Seat is a bit of a misnomer. He might not have been confirmed had the Senate actually had hearings and voted on his nomination.

I imagine you writing that, taking a long slow draw from your maker's mark, reading the words on the screen, smiling that long deep smile one smiles when laughing deeply inside, taking another swig, and contentedly pushing the "submit reply" button, knowing that there would be some who share your humor and some who simply will never understand.

[SEC_Chick]

Sometimes reading this board is even creepier than that Reddit where everyone refers to Trump as "Daddy".