Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506375)

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.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 506389)

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).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506385)

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

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 506376)

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.....

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 506389)

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).

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506392)

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

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 506389)

Bourbon. A Makers Manhattan, to be specific.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506390)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506394)

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506395)

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.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 506384)

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506395)

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506395)

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.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 506384)

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.