Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

If they did so to hack the computers to illegally change votes, clearly illegal. If they did so with the intent of helping the hackers to gain access to information illegally, clearly criminal. Not treason, but criminal.

But getting info from Russians that a Wikileaks dump is about to happen, and what it will disclose, is not illegal.

Obama went to England and directly threatened to put it "at the back of a queue" if it voted for Brexit. That's direct interference by us in a foreign election. It's also entirely legal (and we interfere in foreign elections in far less palatable manners indirectly all the time). Yet we have the temerity to have a fit when the Russians dox Hillary?

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

It's not illegal to talk to them. Not in the least.

The line where things become illegal is when you coordinate with them to engage in illegal acts. Talking about the substance and timing of Wikileaks dumps re HRC and the DNC (which are not illegal) is not illegal.

But, yes, the most careful strategy is to communicate only by telecasting through actions and coded public statements how you'd prefer the Russians to assist. That's belt-and-suspenders. However, if you want to talk, as long as you don't talk about doing something illegal together, sharing info on a shared competitor is not illegal. Unsavory, dirty, un-American arguably? Yeah. But not illegal. Otherwise, Trump could've been indicted when he publicly asked Russia to dump HRC's emails.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

I just don't see a way out of this mess for them. Even if they manage to appease sufficient freedom caucus members and moderates in the house, the bill will be a cobbled together piece of shit that may not survive the Senate and if it does, will piss off constituents whose premiums/deductibles go up or they lose coverage (including old people, who actually vote). The ACA cost Obama the House and Senate, so Trump should really be treading more lightly than he is. (Trump treading lightly -- never going to happen).

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Ollie North = Roger Stone

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

He fucked up. Should have done tax reform first. Now he's made a right mess of both HC and taxes.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Look, healthcare has been a third rail the Dems have burned themselves on repeatedly. We get a sort of once-a-decade implosion trying to do healthcare policy.

But, from all that, a huge proportion of Dems have real healthcare expertise and are sincerely trying to figure out how to do it better, and Obamacare made a very significant contribution to improving the cost and quality of healthcare as a result.

My best advice for Rs now that they've touched the third rail a bit -- go learn. Right now the elected official the Russian Party has with the most healthcare expertise is, once again, a Massachusetts governor. Bill Frist knows a little something, too. Cling to them, give them the ball, and stop just trying to impose Randian economics on the area. But I can give you all that advice with no fear you'll ever take it.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I don't think anyone thinks this happened.

trea·son ˈtrēzən noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

If the Russians said, "We can access DNC records, do you want us to do it?" or "What do you want?" or "Who should we focus on?" and anyone on the Trump campaign answers that question, that's treason, as far as I'm concerned.

If the Russians already hacked the information and contacted the Trump campaign in order to coordinate release of information based on maximizing political fallout to influence the election, that's treason, as far as I'm concerned.

But the main point is: Who the fuck knows what they were doing? I am shocked that you would put it past any of the assholes working on that campaign to be doing the most nefarious, criminal, unethical, awful shit.

This is not insight.

Just fucking stop it. This response is so ridiculous it's below even you. Jesus Christ.

TM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

And now that the Koch brothers have pledged to fund Rs who vote against the AHCA, the threat of the primary challenge is somewhat diminished. I will say that I have heard statements from conservative House members like: "We have received 800 calls against and only 4 in favor of the bill." I don't think all, or even most, of those calls are from people who stand to lose under the AHCA. The approve/disapprove of AHCA is only 41/24 from Republicans. Independents are at 14/58. It's not just unpopular with people who want to continue to receive things paid for by others. Few arguments piss me off more than the garbage about the binary choice, and that if you refuse to vote for the crap sandwich being served up, that you are voting for Obamacare.

But don't get me wrong, I understand that voting against your own interest is only stupid when Rs do it, and is "enlightened" when it's done by liberals.

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

Like, what's the mistake? The GOP majority isn't going to let them use the filibuster to block him, so they change the rules and he gets confirmed. Meanwhile, they can say they did everything possible to keep an extremist out of a illegitimately open appointment.

The alternative is they let Gorsuch be confirmed because he's qualified and then attempt but ultimately fail to filibuster the next guy, if there is a next guy, because he's unqualified, if he's unqualified.

My point being they're only going to get one opportunity to make this symbolic stand. They might as well do it for the guy being appointed to a stolen seat.

Especially as there might not be a next guy, or the next guy might be just as qualified.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

It's not? I'm nothing near a cybersecurity expert (pretty sure you aren't either), but coordinating the timing of a release, for example, is conspiratorial conduct, I'm sure there are arguments the release itself is illegal and the hack itself, as part of the conspiracy, definitely is. And then there's got to be laws against participating in foreign espionage.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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.

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

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.....

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

That is 100% going to happen. They filibuster, he changes the rules and Gorsuch is seated and there are no more filibusters of court nominees.

Alternatively, they can seat Gorsuch and filibuster the next appointee, at which point, the GOP majority goes nuclear, that nominee is seated and there's no more filibusters of court nominees.

Point being, whether now or in the future, the GOP Senate majority isn't going to let the Dems use a filibuster to block a nominee. So what are they losing by trying?

Moreoever, if there is a future nominee that the GOP majority lets them filibuster, that person must be so bad or so compromised that they don't really need the filibuster anyway (as they can change the rule to do away with the filibuster with a majority vote).

There's just nothign to lose in a filibuster now. All the Dems are giving up is the GOP's ability to filibuster future Dem appointees should they Dems be timid enough to not go nuclear when that happens (which they probably would be).

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

Pour one out for Mr. Justice Garland.

I respectfully disagree. Maybe if Gorsuch wasn't taking Garland's seat, I'd agree. But let's face it - Mitch is going to go nuclear at some point in the next 4 years, and right now the Senate Democrats have real leverage.

By the way, I really dislike the current form of filibuster. I think it should go back to the way it originally* was - force the people opposing the bill/nomination/whatever to actually stay on the floor talking. The current "every important vote needs 60 senators to agree" system makes it too easy to obstruct. Under the old rules, it works only enough senators are really opposed to something. That means it only gets used when shit is really bad.

*Maybe not "originally," but you know what I mean. Unfortunately the only Not Fictional uses of the OG rule was when southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond in 1957 and Senators Russell and Byrd (hi Penske!) in 1964 filibustered. Sadly, Mr. Smith didn't really Go to Washington,

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

I assume there is more going on we're not yet aware of. Dems are also going to want to wedge open the divisions in the Senate, get some Rs willing to cross over out of disgust with Trump, and that may be more critical than any vote at all. If we can get it to the point where there are a half dozen Republican senators ready to regularly go against Trump and McConnell, or to the point where McConnell wants all his senators to have the ability to say they stood up to that disaster Trump, the Dems may get more out of it than they will if they slow down a nominee they probably can't block.

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

If they go nuclear to put Gorsuch on the bench, we'll take our chances going forward.

TM

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

I think these are pipe dreams. The absolute best case scenario is that Republicans stop voting lock step for things they actually disagree with. That means anything that isn't complete horseshit goes through.

TM

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

A bit of a pet peeve of mine when anyone refers to it as "Garland's seat".

Just for clarification, I am assuming that you also refer to Kennedy as holding "Bork's seat"?

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

I don't think people would refer to it in that manner if the Republicans had the fucking balls to give him a vote.

TM

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

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.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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

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

If Schumer filibusters, it's not because he thinks he can stop Gorsuch from being confirmed, but for the politics thereafter.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Republicans keep saying it to divert attention from what actually might have happened. Sebby keeps bringing it up because he has assimilated Republican talking points into his reality.

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

Um, what? Have you been drinking?

Tonight you're mine, completely.
 

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).

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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.

Re: Tonight you're mine, completely.
 

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.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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.

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

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.

Re: Tonight you're mine, completely.
 

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.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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.

Re: Tonight you're mine, completely.
 

Good choice.
Filibuster now. Fillibuster forever.

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

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

You can rest assured that I read everything you wrote.

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.

Re: Tonight you're mine, completely.
 

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.

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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

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

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

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

Everyone agrees that this sort of thing needs further scrutiny:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7c4NY1XwAAevyd.jpg

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse
 

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.

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

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.

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

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