crazietalk.net

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

December 27th, 2022, 8:15 pm

CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑

December 27th, 2022, 8:07 pm

Totally agree. But look how long the court cases against Trump are taking.

Different entity. Look how briefly it took the courts to kick Kari Lake to the curb. Santos is a nobody, without money. It's more than that he doesn't have Trump's resources, it's that he's basically broke. (And deeply in debt to at least one landlord.) He will be disposed of fairly quickly.

I read somewhere that there is some suspicion that he is a puppet for someone else who basically bankrolled his election and his lifestyle in general. That person might just abandon him at this point, or they might support his legal efforts - unclear. The issue is sorting through the things he did that are really poor form compared to those which might be used to get him removed from office and/or put in jail.

EDNY says "Hi, George."

Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the finances of Rep.-elect George Santos, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

The news of the probe, being undertaken by the US attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York, comes as the Republican has admitted to lying about key parts of his biography. Santos has faced questions over his wealth and loans totaling more than $700,000 he made to his successful 2022 campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/28/politics ... index.html

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2022, 10:11 pm

EDNY says "Hi, George."

Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the finances of Rep.-elect George Santos, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

The news of the probe, being undertaken by the US attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York, comes as the Republican has admitted to lying about key parts of his biography. Santos has faced questions over his wealth and loans totaling more than $700,000 he made to his successful 2022 campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/28/politics ... index.html

This guy is cooked.

OPK wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2022, 10:49 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2022, 10:11 pm

EDNY says "Hi, George."

Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the finances of Rep.-elect George Santos, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

The news of the probe, being undertaken by the US attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York, comes as the Republican has admitted to lying about key parts of his biography. Santos has faced questions over his wealth and loans totaling more than $700,000 he made to his successful 2022 campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/28/politics ... index.html

This guy is cooked.

OPK - I know there are not a ton of details out there, but how long do you think something like this could take? Because unlike someone in NYC arrested of a low level crime who could sit in Riker's for months (or even years) awaiting trial, Santos will get to hold office while they pursue the investigation. I'm assuming that to do a thorough investigation, followed by a trial, will take him most of the way through his term.

CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2022, 8:33 am

OPK wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2022, 10:49 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2022, 10:11 pm

EDNY says "Hi, George."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/28/politics ... index.html

This guy is cooked.

OPK - I know there are not a ton of details out there, but how long do you think something like this could take? Because unlike someone in NYC arrested of a low level crime who could sit in Riker's for months (or even years) awaiting trial, Santos will get to hold office while they pursue the investigation. I'm assuming that to do a thorough investigation, followed by a trial, will take him most of the way through his term.

Really hard to say. I think the big legal peril is attached to did financial disclosures and where he got his sudden wealth (if true). That will take time to dig out and sift — let alone indict and move through trial.

Tl;dr — frustratingly longer than he deserves.

This would be an open door invite for a Biden second term.

Donald Trump has floated the idea of running a third-party campaign if increasingly disgruntled Republican leaders don’t get behind his run for the presidency.

Trump signaled the possibility by posting an article on Truth Social Wednesday promoting just such an option.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-floats ... 27119.html

So . . . Does Kevin McCarthy end up as Speaker by sundown tomorrow?

OPK wrote: ↑

January 2nd, 2023, 3:12 pm

So . . . Does Kevin McCarthy end up as Speaker by sundown tomorrow?

My guess is that it doesn't happen on the first vote, which hasn't happened in exactly 100 years. Or so I've been told, I wasn't there for it.

A floor fight has only taken place once since the Civil War, exactly 100 years ago, when it took nine ballots for Rep. Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts to be elected speaker in 1923.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/politics ... at-matters

OPK wrote: ↑

January 2nd, 2023, 3:12 pm

So . . . Does Kevin McCarthy end up as Speaker by sundown tomorrow?

I disagree with her policies, but would love to see enough Republicans get together with House Democrats and elect Liz Cheney speaker. That would be epic

Not going swimmingly for KM at the moment. About to lose on the second ballot too.

I wonder if the holdouts really stick to it and force a change. I'm wondering who, exactly, the far right feel would be a better choice?

Kevin's like Rudolph...going down in history.

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 3:12 pm

I wonder if the holdouts really stick to it and force a change. I'm wondering who, exactly, the far right feel would be a better choice?

From what I can tell, they don’t have an option and are simply being a$$holes.

ArkieDukie wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 5:29 pm

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 3:12 pm

I wonder if the holdouts really stick to it and force a change. I'm wondering who, exactly, the far right feel would be a better choice?

From what I can tell, they don’t have an option and are simply being a$$holes.

Shocking!

Did I read correctly that the House can't be seated until they have a Speaker? Is it required to have a Speaker? I am forgetting all of my civics lessons (and apologies for being too lazy to look it up - I'm usually the one googling these things for other people).

Hunter is enjoying the delay so their only agenda item for the next two years is going after him. Rather than, you know, doing things to help people and make the country a better place and solve some of the other issues they are constantly whining about but refuse to actually do anything about (which might actually be for the better at times).

CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 5:36 pm

ArkieDukie wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 5:29 pm

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 3:12 pm

I wonder if the holdouts really stick to it and force a change. I'm wondering who, exactly, the far right feel would be a better choice?

From what I can tell, they don’t have an option and are simply being a$$holes.

Shocking!

Did I read correctly that the House can't be seated until they have a Speaker? Is it required to have a Speaker? I am forgetting all of my civics lessons (and apologies for being too lazy to look it up - I'm usually the one googling these things for other people).

Hunter is enjoying the delay so their only agenda item for the next two years is going after him. Rather than, you know, doing things to help people and make the country a better place and solve some of the other issues they are constantly whining about but refuse to actually do anything about (which might actually be for the better at times).

According to what I heard on NPR, that is correct. New members of the house cannot even be sworn in until that have a speaker. The House is being held hostage by a bunch of toddlers. According to this article, they’re doing this in an attempt to get plum committee assignments, among other things: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/03/ke ... z-speaker/

ArkieDukie wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 9:23 pm

CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 5:36 pm

ArkieDukie wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2023, 5:29 pm

From what I can tell, they don’t have an option and are simply being a$$holes.

Shocking!

Did I read correctly that the House can't be seated until they have a Speaker? Is it required to have a Speaker? I am forgetting all of my civics lessons (and apologies for being too lazy to look it up - I'm usually the one googling these things for other people).

Hunter is enjoying the delay so their only agenda item for the next two years is going after him. Rather than, you know, doing things to help people and make the country a better place and solve some of the other issues they are constantly whining about but refuse to actually do anything about (which might actually be for the better at times).

According to what I heard on NPR, that is correct. New members of the house cannot even be sworn in until that have a speaker. The House is being held hostage by a bunch of toddlers. According to this article, they’re doing this in an attempt to get plum committee assignments, among other things: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/03/ke ... z-speaker/

Thanks - that is helpful.

I have been reading more about this. My initial optimistic thought was that if McCarthy starts making too many concessions to the far right, perhaps some of the more moderate Republicans might peel off and potential support Jeffries or another Dem. I am far from an expert on the policies of all of the Representatives but as I tried to find lists of the more "moderate" Republicans, I could identify any who might be candidates to defect. The House Republicans are pretty much 100% hard core Trumpers - it is just degrees of extremism. Maybe Tom Kean Jr.'s dad, who was a very centrist Republican, could knock some sense into him? But that is only one and it is unlikely to happen as I think he is buddies with McCarthy.

So the likely end game is that McCarthy makes some ridiculous promises to the far right extremists. Then at some point he might violate one of those promises, a few of them vote to remove him, and we are back to where we are right now.

This is brutal.

OPK wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2023, 12:56 pm

This is brutal.

And it continues. McC loses the 6th.

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2023, 3:48 pm

OPK wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2023, 12:56 pm

This is brutal.

And it continues. McC loses the 6th.

When do they start blaming Obama and Dems?

DukePA wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2023, 4:08 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2023, 3:48 pm

OPK wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2023, 12:56 pm

This is brutal.

And it continues. McC loses the 6th.

When do they start blaming Obama and Dems?

The lady who nominated McCarthy last time blamed the Dems, their popcorn, and their alcohol. (Not kidding)