The Political Junkie Thread

[dudog]

I watched a good bit of the hearings this morning. I like the way they are doing it, showing the interviews that they've held. I truly do wish that the Republicans could have been more adult about participating on the committee. I'd be interested to hear the questions they'd ask, and and the replies that they get from the witnesses.
In one way, it keeps the Circus Show that the likes of Jim Jordan would be attempting to promote off the floor, but there are members on the GOP side that could have been valid contributors.

Sorry, gotta disagree. Name one.

And I've been thinking the same about mail fraud, though I think it's called wire fraud in the digital age.

There are plenty of GOP members not seeking the limelight in the way that Goetz, Jordan, Gosar, etc do.
In fact it's the ones that I DON'T know that I'd like to see on the committee.

AHA! You didn't name one. They are all in lock-step with Trump.

I honest-to-god wish it wasn't so.

[CameronBornAndBred]

AHA! You didn't name one. They are all in lock-step with Trump.

I honest-to-god wish it wasn't so.

Agree/disagree. They are terrified of his base, but they are not all in lockstep with him.
And I know, that's a very hard sentence to parse. I'll never argue that sanity runs deep on that side of the aisle, but I will happily debate how long the shadow of fear is cast.

[dudog]

AHA! You didn't name one. They are all in lock-step with Trump.

I honest-to-god wish it wasn't so.

Agree/disagree. They are terrified of his base, but they are not all in lockstep with him.
And I know, that's a very hard sentence to parse. I'll never argue that sanity runs deep on that side of the aisle, but I will happily debate how long the shadow of fear is cast.

Not meaning to pick on you CB&B, but here's proof:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Your own Richard Burr, not running for re-election:

But Senate Republicans say they’re not paying attention to any of it, nor do they intend to.

“Why? Theater?” Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who voted to convict Trump over his role in inciting the riot, told HuffPost when asked if he planned to tune in.

You need to realize this is war, plain and simple. The country is on the line.

[CameronBornAndBred]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Your own Richard Burr, not running for re-election:

But Senate Republicans say they’re not paying attention to any of it, nor do they intend to.

“Why? Theater?” Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who voted to convict Trump over his role in inciting the riot, told HuffPost when asked if he planned to tune in.

You need to realize this is war, plain and simple. The country is on the line.

One nitpick. Burr is a Senator, and the committee is all House members. But to your point, there's a reason that not even some non-descript congress person from nowhere stood up. I get it. I just cross my fingers with more optimism than America actually cedes me.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Your own Richard Burr, not running for re-election:

But Senate Republicans say they’re not paying attention to any of it, nor do they intend to.

“Why? Theater?” Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who voted to convict Trump over his role in inciting the riot, told HuffPost when asked if he planned to tune in.

You need to realize this is war, plain and simple. The country is on the line.

One nitpick. Burr is a Senator, and the committee is all House members. But to your point, there's a reason that not even some non-descript congress person from nowhere stood up. I get it. I just cross my fingers with more optimism than America actually cedes me.

I am curious where some of the allegedly moderate Senators stand on this. I kept hoping that Romney would be a voice of reason who had some respect for the institutions of government and has more money than he needs so could quit when necessary. But he has been silent. To CB&B's point, there really aren't many moderate Republican Reps left. The primary process combined with the ridiculous drawing of district lines drives them to extremes.

It seems like much of the narrative today was that there were plenty of top advisors telling Trump to give up and that he lost, but unfortunately there were clowns like Rudy who told him otherwise. Is it a prosecutable offense for him to ignore the truth and believe what he wants to believe and be a raging psychopath who is unable to admit defeat? Unfortunately, I don't think it is. In non-bizarro world, this lack of familiarity with reality would make it hard for him to get re-elected, but unfortunately there are tens of millions of "Americans" who have no issue with this and prefer Trump not only vs. woke progressives, but also compared to moderate Republicans who are actually closer to their political agenda but don't have the pizzazz of Trump.

[OPK]

FWIW, the most legal jeopardy I heard today was the allegation of bilking believers out of a quarter billion dollars on the known-false premise of voter fraud, asking them to donate to a non-existent “fund” which instead was used to the personal profit of the Trump family. That’s a case any prosecutor could make.

Give me the first twelve in the box and let me call my first witness.

[CameronBornAndBred]

FWIW, the most legal jeopardy I heard today was the allegation of bilking believers out of a quarter billion dollars on the known-false premise of voter fraud, asking them to donate to a non-existent “fund” which instead was used to the personal profit of the Trump family. That’s a case any prosecutor could make.

Give me the first twelve in the box and let me call my first witness.

Yep. As I stated above, my eyes widened, and I'm rarely alone in any line of thought. (But I do promise I'm still unique!)

I know for a fact buried in the early pages of this thread is us discussing such shenanigans, but we never thought they'd actually turn legal.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Add "he's older than dirt" to the list of Biden's growing political problems.
I think it's funny how this article even bothers to note that he'd be 86 at the end of a second term, when the chances of that term even happening are nil to none.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-wa ... 11705.html

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Add "he's older than dirt" to the list of Biden's growing political problems.
I think it's funny how this article even bothers to note that he'd be 86 at the end of a second term, when the chances of that term even happening are nil to none.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-wa ... 11705.html

Meanwhile, in case the rest of you weren't invited to the party, Trump turned 76 today (ironically on Flag Day).

The Dems need to find someone else. But that discussion is just going to highlight the divisions in the party. I wish I had a good suggestion but at this point, I don't, and I just want us to make it through November and not end up with Oz and Herschel in the Senate.

AOC saying she might not vote for him is her typical garbage. So is she going to vote for Trump or Desantis? Because their views are a lot closer to hers than Biden's? All of our districts in New York got completely redrawn and there is a lot of chaos as a result (my rep was Nadler and now Maloney is running against him as the heart of their old districts were combined into one), but unfortunately, I don't think they did any damage to her.

[OPK]

Uh oh, Spaghetti-O:

https://twitter.com/newyorkstateag/stat ... QfNUOyaa1A

Looks like someone is interested in the fraud allegations if Garland is not.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Meanwhile, in case the rest of you weren't invited to the party, Trump turned 76 today (ironically on Flag Day).

Yes, but Trump's version of being old and Biden's is definitively different.

I wonder if it would be wise for Biden to say he's not running again before the midterms. Yes, it would put him in "lame duck" status, but honestly that won't change anything in Congress right now. It would give freedom to younger faces to step up, and become as visible as folks like Desantis ( ) have been for months now.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Uh oh, Spaghetti-O:

https://twitter.com/newyorkstateag/stat ... QfNUOyaa1A

Looks like someone is interested in the fraud allegations if Garland is not.

I believe she has a civil case against him now, which, as I understand it, is all well and good but can't put him in jail. Would she have jurisdiction over this, particularly since NY was not one of the states he was looking to overturn and I think he is now a FL resident?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Uh oh, Spaghetti-O:

https://twitter.com/newyorkstateag/stat ... QfNUOyaa1A

Looks like someone is interested in the fraud allegations if Garland is not.

I believe she has a civil case against him now, which, as I understand it, is all well and good but can't put him in jail. Would she have jurisdiction over this, particularly since NY was not one of the states he was looking to overturn and I think he is now a FL resident?

If any of the donations came from NY, then she could make one. Of course whoever goes after this in court will also have to produce witnesses that say that were defrauded. I can see the majority of those folks, even though they got totally swindled, saying that they didn't care where their money actually went.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Uh oh, Spaghetti-O:

https://twitter.com/newyorkstateag/stat ... QfNUOyaa1A

Looks like someone is interested in the fraud allegations if Garland is not.

I believe she has a civil case against him now, which, as I understand it, is all well and good but can't put him in jail. Would she have jurisdiction over this, particularly since NY was not one of the states he was looking to overturn and I think he is now a FL resident?

If any of the donations came from NY, then she could make one. Of course whoever goes after this in court will also have to produce witnesses that say that were defrauded. I can see the majority of those folks, even though they got totally swindled, saying that they didn't care where their money actually went.

I live in NY! Where do I send my check? Though I guess me testifying in court that my intended use of the money was to overturn the election would be a bit of a stretch.

I am due for jury duty here soon...

[CrazyNotCrazie]

NY Times column (sorry, paywall) by a Georgetown Law professor about the charges that can be brought against Trump. Seems like there is a pretty good case.

Question for OPK: if Garland hopefully brings the case, can he use everything being presented now as evidence, or does he have to go back and interview everyone all over again? And how much would Trump be able to stall it? I'm worried that this takes forever and next thing we know there is a Republican president elected in 2024 and the new AG drops the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/opin ... trump.html

[CameronBornAndBred]

NY Times column (sorry, paywall) by a Georgetown Law professor about the charges that can be brought against Trump. Seems like there is a pretty good case.

Question for OPK: if Garland hopefully brings the case, can he use everything being presented now as evidence, or does he have to go back and interview everyone all over again? And how much would Trump be able to stall it? I'm worried that this takes forever and next thing we know there is a Republican president elected in 2024 and the new AG drops the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/opin ... trump.html

The author is Neal Katyal. He's always very informative during his analyst stints on MSNBC.
The stalling question is a good one, since that's his goto tactic, but I think with a criminal case it might be different. If charges are actually brought, then wouldn't there be less chance to do so as opposed to fighting a subpoena?
Which by the way, the highest NY court has upheld that he must sit for sworn testimony next month.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald- ... d=85393089

[OPK]

NY Times column (sorry, paywall) by a Georgetown Law professor about the charges that can be brought against Trump. Seems like there is a pretty good case.

Question for OPK: if Garland hopefully brings the case, can he use everything being presented now as evidence, or does he have to go back and interview everyone all over again? And how much would Trump be able to stall it? I'm worried that this takes forever and next thing we know there is a Republican president elected in 2024 and the new AG drops the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/opin ... trump.html

I’m far from a criminal law expert but:

1. Trump can object to the use of depositions or sworn interviews at trial in which he did not have counsel present to cross-examine. And this would not be a delay tactic (necessarily); I would do the same. All parties have a legitimate Constitutional right to confront witnesses testifying against her/him. Depositions are typically civil case tools and not criminal, anyway.

2. Having said that, Garland can call the witnesses to testify and probably could use the depositions to impeach the witnesses if they stray from their present testimony. So there is some use.

3. No idea if Garland can use them in front of a grand jury to get indictments or not, it’s a very different standard and I have little experience in that area.

4. Trump can certainly try to delay. As can witnesses. Given infinite money. I can come up with close to infinite gear jams. But a lot depends on the judge, and the venue (federal or state).

Tl;dr — hopefully Garland has been working for 18 months and not just starting now.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

NY Times column (sorry, paywall) by a Georgetown Law professor about the charges that can be brought against Trump. Seems like there is a pretty good case.

Question for OPK: if Garland hopefully brings the case, can he use everything being presented now as evidence, or does he have to go back and interview everyone all over again? And how much would Trump be able to stall it? I'm worried that this takes forever and next thing we know there is a Republican president elected in 2024 and the new AG drops the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/opin ... trump.html

I’m far from a criminal law expert but:

1. Trump can object to the use of depositions or sworn interviews at trial in which he did not have counsel present to cross-examine. And this would not be a delay tactic (necessarily); I would do the same. All parties have a legitimate Constitutional right to confront witnesses testifying against her/him. Depositions are typically civil case tools and not criminal, anyway.

2. Having said that, Garland can call the witnesses to testify and probably could use the depositions to impeach the witnesses if they stray from their present testimony. So there is some use.

3. No idea if Garland can use them in front of a grand jury to get indictments or not, it’s a very different standard and I have little experience in that area.

4. Trump can certainly try to delay. As can witnesses. Given infinite money. I can come up with close to infinite gear jams. But a lot depends on the judge, and the venue (federal or state).

Tl;dr — hopefully Garland has been working for 18 months and not just starting now.

Thanks. Very helpful. Hopefully the subpoenas will be going out as soon as this is done. Otherwise Garland should be disbarred for malpractice.

If each witness delays even a little bit it can really add up. And I could easily see Trump having his quack doctor say that as a medical emergency he has to have some kind of surgery that will put him out of commission for a while. The old "three month recovery from phony gall bladder surgery" move.

What venue would be most logical for this?

And what is your hourly billable? I think we (or I) owe you for your legal wisdom. Do you take crypto?

[OPK]

I don’t think DJT ever spends a day in jail. But I think the empire is in ruins by the time he passes it all to the kids.

Do you think Ivanka and Jared will be spending their Fourth of July holiday at Mar-a-Lago? I’m betting not.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The effects of The Great Lie has now taken hold in the real world. Folks in New Mexico are refusing to certify the recent primary results in part because of Dominion machines.

New Mexico’s secretary of state on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to order the Republican-led commission of rural Otero County to certify primary election results after it refused to do so over distrust of Dominion vote-tallying machines.

“I have huge concerns with these voting machines,” Otero County Commissioner Vickie Marquardt said Monday. “When I certify stuff that I don’t know is right, I feel like I’m being dishonest because in my heart I don’t know if it is right.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-commissi ... 11875.html