The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[pearlbeer]

I'm still debating myself on the impeachment issue. (I'm a master debater!) While I'm certain there are clearly impeachable offenses, I'm not sure it is the best bet. Mostly because I do not think there is any amount of evidence that would compel the Rs to act in good faith. The outcome would be claimed as another 'exoneration' when the Senate fails to convict. At the end of the day, I don't think Congress has the responsibility to impeach the President, the people do. Mass protests are likely to be the only truly effective tool - and for some reason, they don't seem to be happening. We are worn out. I'll be the first in line with my sign, but I'll admit - I'm worn out, depressed and pessimistic.

So, here is my real question. Bubba, you may be able to shed some legal light here. What happens when someone says 'no' to a Congressional Subpoena? I know this may move on to the courts, but what happens when they refuse to show to court? What happens when they refuse to accept a court decision?

I suppose I've been wondering - where the fuck are the consequences? If one side has at least 1/3 of the power what happens if they just say 'no'? I can think back to high school and college and my education around Government and the Constitution and what is SUPPOSED to happen. But what the hell happens when there is continuous refusal to comply with Congressional Orders? (I guess the answer here is a Congressional Crisis)

[beantownbubba]

I think you mean "Constitutional" crisis in your last line, PB, and that would be correct.

The short answer is that nobody knows. We're heading into uncharted territory. Ultimately, enforcing subpoenas means going to court, and if the courts (including ultimately the Supremes) side w/ Congress, what then? Why would the President obey the Court any more than he is obeying Congress? Or would a clear Court decision finally turn the poobahs of the Republican Party away from Trump and towards the country? And even if it did, what then? The scenarios spin out of control at that point. What if Congress moves to enforce the Court's order by sending law enforcement to drag Administration personnel to hearings or to jail? What if the President orders troops to resist the law enforcement officials? What if said law enforcement officials (or their superiors) or said troops (or their superiors) refuse to obey Congress's or the President's orders? This thing could slip into a seriously dysfunctional dystopia way too quickly though I'd like to thing things will never get to this kind of worst case scenario.

I assume that this is why the Dems are moving so slowly and seem to be trying to put off confrontation. This is a game of chicken at the very highest levels being played for the very highest stakes and one of the sides is a completely unpredictable wild card.

Oh, btw, if the Supreme Court sides w/ Trump, God save us all. That will literally be the end of this country as we know it. I can't predict any better than anyone else what would happen then but I'm pretty sure it won't be good.

Note that if a clear, veto proof portion of Congress gets its act together to confront Trump and say "no more," Congress has the ability to quickly put a stop to this nonsense. For example, they could stop funding pretty much anything and everything they want, like, say, the White House staff. But w/out Republican buy in at the highest and most serious levels, the Democrats maneuvering room is much less than is ideal which is part of the reason we're in such an awkward state.

[Clams]

My understanding is that if one party refuses to comply with a valid subpoena, it then works its way through the judicial system and at some point there should be a final order from whatever court ultimately decides the issue. If one doesn't comply with the final order, then there would be contempt proceedings to force compliance (fines, jail, etc). Am I right?

[pearlbeer]

My understanding is that if one party refuses to comply with a valid subpoena, it then works its way through the judicial system and at some point there should be a final order from whatever court ultimately decides the issue. If one doesn't comply with the final order, then there would be contempt proceedings to force compliance (fines, jail, etc). Am I right?

I think you are right Clams. But, if they are now blanket "not complying with Congressional Subpoenas", what is to stop them from further non-compliance?

I guess the real answer is: a situation like that would violate every norm and the decorum of our Government.
The next answer is: Do you think THIS administration gives a goddamn rat's ass about that?

Maybe I'm having a bad week. But it certainly feels like we are hurtling towards the sun. And, dammit, I was hoping for just one more Rock Show before we explode into flames.

[beantownbubba]

My understanding is that if one party refuses to comply with a valid subpoena, it then works its way through the judicial system and at some point there should be a final order from whatever court ultimately decides the issue. If one doesn't comply with the final order, then there would be contempt proceedings to force compliance (fines, jail, etc). Am I right?

You are right up to a point, and that point is when compliance with court orders has to be forced. Subpoenas, contempt citations, court orders, etc are merely pieces of paper. Generally speaking, the subjects of such orders, citations, etc choose to comply voluntarily even if they've contested the orders to the point of forcing a judicial determination. The entire system depends on respect for the rule of law and at some point conceding to the power of the state in the form of law enforcement. If one chooses to defy that, the options and alternatives get quite limited. When the one doing the defying is the president of the United States, the options and alternatives get downright scary.

[Clams]

Question: Are we talking about his tax returns? Are those the documents that were subpoenaed? Because if so, they would be in the possession of the IRS as well as Trump. And wouldn't the IRS as a third party be required to produce the documents if ordered to do so by a court? In other words, while we might expect noncompliance with a court order from Trump, we wouldn't expect it from the IRS or a third party. (Or would we?)

[beantownbubba]

Question: Are we talking about his tax returns? Are those the documents that were subpoenaed? Because if so, they would be in the possession of the IRS as well as Trump. And wouldn't the IRS as a third party be required to produce the documents if ordered to do so by a court? In other words, while we might expect noncompliance with a court order from Trump, we wouldn't expect it from the IRS or a third party. (Or would we?)

We're talking about lots of things, but let's focus on 2: the tax returns and Don McGahn's testimony. The relevant committee of the House (i forget which one) served both the IRS and the Treasury Dept (of which the IRS is a part) w/ demands for the tax returns. Trump, their boss, ordered them not to comply. Another relevant committee of the House (i forget which one) subpoenad McGahn to testify at a hearing. The President objected, claiming executive privilege and ordered McGahn, not to comply. What authority the President has w/ respect to McGahn, who no longer works for the executive branch is a separate interesting question but for the moment all parties are acting as if McGahn is an executive branch employee. McGahn, the Treasury Secy and the head of the IRS can choose to ignore Trump, but that's not likely, at least until the threat of going to jail becomes real, which is way down the road in terms of the length of the legal process. But if your point is that eventually INDIVIDUALS, not bureaucratic agencies, bear the risks of non-compliance, you're right. How they'll respond will be a very interesting question if it comes to that. Personally I can't imagine Mnuchin going to jail for Trump nor can I imagine any career civil servant doing so. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Zip City]

I think the long game is that challenging all the subpoenas in court will drag the issue out past the 2020 election

[pearlbeer]

Question: Are we talking about his tax returns? Are those the documents that were subpoenaed? Because if so, they would be in the possession of the IRS as well as Trump. And wouldn't the IRS as a third party be required to produce the documents if ordered to do so by a court? In other words, while we might expect noncompliance with a court order from Trump, we wouldn't expect it from the IRS or a third party. (Or would we?)

We're talking about lots of things, but let's focus on 2: the tax returns and Don McGahn's testimony. The relevant committee of the House (i forget which one) served both the IRS and the Treasury Dept (of which the IRS is a part) w/ demands for the tax returns. Trump, their boss, ordered them not to comply. Another relevant committee of the House (i forget which one) subpoenad McGahn to testify at a hearing. The President objected, claiming executive privilege and ordered McGahn, not to comply. What authority the President has w/ respect to McGahn, who no longer works for the executive branch is a separate interesting question but for the moment all parties are acting as if McGahn is an executive branch employee. McGahn, the Treasury Secy and the head of the IRS can choose to ignore Trump, but that's not likely, at least until the threat of going to jail becomes real, which is way down the road in terms of the length of the legal process. But if your point is that eventually INDIVIDUALS, not bureaucratic agencies, bear the risks of non-compliance, you're right. How they'll respond will be a very interesting question if it comes to that. Personally I can't imagine Mnuchin going to jail for Trump nor can I imagine any career civil servant doing so. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Additionally, by law, the President CANNOT claim Executive Privilege over information that has been previously allowed out of the White House. McGahn was allowed to testify to the SC Office, and Executive Privilege was not invoked. The law is clear here. He CAN NOT stop McGahn from testifying.

But, he has.

And the consequences to that are increasing looking like: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[LBRod]

I think the long game is that challenging all the subpoenas in court will drag the issue out past the 2020 election

That is what happened with Fast & Furious.

[beantownbubba]

This editorial from a Lexington KY newspaper appears to be old, but I just came across it, courtesy of maluca3. This is exactly what I've been saying: The "Russia issue" should be a bipartisan concern and the Republicans' refusal to treat it seriously is a very bad thing for which they should be hammered.

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editor ... 6s6sQFDke4

[beantownbubba]

These things were supposedly said this weekend. They're so far out there that I have my doubts, but then I think of who the speakers are and, yep, it's at least possible they really said these things.

At a rally in WI, Donald Trump the President of the United States, described how new mothers and their doctors get together immediately after the birth of the baby to decide whether to kill the kid. Yeah, like that actually happens anywhere outside Trump's imagination. But Trump lying about any and everything is hardly a surprise. I am curious, though, about why he thinks this particular lie will be effective for him.

On national TV, when asked about Medicare for all, Mitch McConnell said something like "Medicare for all? We'll have Medicare for none before we have Medicare for all."

To clarify, I express no opinion about whether Medicare for all is a sensible plan. For these purposes I take it as a proxy for "universal health care." That McConnell apparently thinks that universal coverage is a worse idea than not providing govt health insurance to anyone is so far out there, until an hour ago I would have said it's not even an acceptable position in mainstream America. Medicare for none???? Just this week, I have been beaten down by the number of healthcare related go fund me appeals I have seen. This used to be an embarrassment; by now it's a shame and a crime. Good people, real people having to beg strangers in order to afford to be treated for illness or disease. In the United States of America. Allegedly the wealthiest country in the history of the world and the most generous and fair-minded, with liberty and justice for all. It doesn't get much uglier than this.

[Flea]

These things were supposedly said this weekend. They're so far out there that I have my doubts, but then I think of who the speakers are and, yep, it's at least possible they really said these things.

At a rally in WI, Donald Trump the President of the United States, described how new mothers and their doctors get together immediately after the birth of the baby to decide whether to kill the kid. Yeah, like that actually happens anywhere outside Trump's imagination. But Trump lying about any and everything is hardly a surprise. I am curious, though, about why he thinks this particular lie will be effective for him.

On national TV, when asked about Medicare for all, Mitch McConnell said something like "Medicare for all? We'll have Medicare for none before we have Medicare for all."

To clarify, I express no opinion about whether Medicare for all is a sensible plan. For these purposes I take it as a proxy for "universal health care." That McConnell apparently thinks that universal coverage is a worse idea than not providing govt health insurance to anyone is so far out there, until an hour ago I would have said it's not even an acceptable position in mainstream America. Medicare for none???? Just this week, I have been beaten down by the number of healthcare related go fund me appeals I have seen. This used to be an embarrassment; by now it's a shame and a crime. Good people, real people having to beg strangers in order to afford to be treated for illness or disease. In the United States of America. Allegedly the wealthiest country in the history of the world and the most generous and fair-minded, with liberty and justice for all. It doesn't get much uglier than this.

It's even worse than that. I have a retired corporate CEO, published author, and millionaire threatening me with either a Board complaint or legal action because last Friday - get this - I did a surgical procedure that SAVED HIS FUCKING DOG FROM DYING! And cured 2 problems that he had. This country (and by this country, I mean a majority of older entitled white people) has lost its goddamned mind.

[Zip City]

These things were supposedly said this weekend. They're so far out there that I have my doubts, but then I think of who the speakers are and, yep, it's at least possible they really said these things.

At a rally in WI, Donald Trump the President of the United States, described how new mothers and their doctors get together immediately after the birth of the baby to decide whether to kill the kid. Yeah, like that actually happens anywhere outside Trump's imagination. But Trump lying about any and everything is hardly a surprise. I am curious, though, about why he thinks this particular lie will be effective for him.

It's extremely effective. This lie is blazing around the conservative blog-o-sphere at the speed of light, and now everyone believes it as fact

[John A Arkansawyer]

These things were supposedly said this weekend. They're so far out there that I have my doubts, but then I think of who the speakers are and, yep, it's at least possible they really said these things.

At a rally in WI, Donald Trump the President of the United States, described how new mothers and their doctors get together immediately after the birth of the baby to decide whether to kill the kid. Yeah, like that actually happens anywhere outside Trump's imagination. But Trump lying about any and everything is hardly a surprise. I am curious, though, about why he thinks this particular lie will be effective for him.

It's extremely effective. This lie is blazing around the conservative blog-o-sphere at the speed of light, and now everyone believes it as fact

It's a bit of a self-own. Right at the moment when abortion rights for everyone were hanging in the balance, some goddam geniuses in (I think I remember correctly) the Virginia and New York legislatures decided it was time for an extremely liberal law regarding late term abortions. It's not that the new law was wrong--it wasn't. It codified the current reasonable practice for the exceptionally rare late-term abortions, but in a way that could be read as just short of what Trump is claiming. Right now, if a woman with a tragic late-term disaster--a child without a brain, a child who's already dead, a child who'll have a brief life of nothing but pain, like, not even what the girl in Little Bonnie got--the current law allowed doctors to perform an abortion, one right on the line of euthanasia. It was a good practice for that exceptionally rare case. These new laws made that a legal right for a woman rather than a medical decision involving a doctor.

It was a bit offensive to me, as presented by its advocates, and I'm pretty damned pro-abortion, and it was a fucking gift to Trump. Here are two very well-spoken advocates for abortion rights in a sympathetic forum. You'll notice two things about what they say and don't say. The first is that they start with word parsing. The second is that they never directly address the contents of the law they are defending. They make a positively wonderful case for the sort of late-term--oh, pardon me for using colloquial language--later in pregnancy abortions. But they don't ever face the contents of the new laws head on. I don't blame them. The advocates of the new law have tin ears and lousy timing. They're technically in the right, but no practical right was gained by the new language. It meant you could now have a later-in-pregnancy abortion in two states where no one performed them.

At least, no one publicly admitted to performing them. But I'm sure those with enough money were getting them. Now they have a right to get them. And the women who desperately need later-in-pregnancy abortions who don't have the money to hire whoever to do whatever are now at much greater danger of losing that right, along with a general overall tightening of abortion laws throughout the rest of the country.

It's the worst political judgement since Biden and Warren sat on their hands in 2016, and that one gave us Trump. Fucking idiocy. But at least they have another right to lose, this time, one written into law. Yay team.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Here's a very good article about the history of baby-killing claims as propaganda.

“They Will Execute the Baby”
Trump is lying about mothers and doctors conspiring to kill newborns. But as propaganda against his enemies, it’s a lie with a dangerously effective history.

How can the reality-based community, where it is understood that mother-doctor infanticide conspiracies are not real, even respond to a story like this? One response is: Tell the truth about the difficult circumstances around nonviable pregnancies. This time around, a former NICU nurse wrote a viral Twitter thread about what happens in a hospital after the birth of a baby too disabled to live. The last time Trump told this crazy story, in February, while discussing recent New York state legislation to expand abortion rights past the 24th week in cases where the fetus isn’t viable or the mother’s life is threatened, OB-GYN and writer Jen Gunter described her own experience giving birth to a “son who was born to die” in a New York Times op-ed, titled “I Didn’t Kill My Baby.”

But none of these earnest and well-meant counternarratives are going to change the minds of people who already believe that women and doctors might actually do something like this. That’s because the story is much more than “bullshit,” a “lie,” or a “falsehood.” Trump’s abortion story is a piece of atrocity propaganda. It draws on a centuries-old trope—the cruel and capricious murder of infants—to confirm his supporters’ beliefs that the liberals and feminists living among them are, secretly, selfish monsters. And for those who’ve deployed it in the past, it has proved dangerously effective. This is why, out of all the terrifying crap that comes out of his mouth, I think it might be the scariest.

It's a good historical summary, but as you can see, it never answers its own question: "How can the reality-based community, where it is understood that mother-doctor infanticide conspiracies are not real, even respond to a story like this?" It does mention, only to discount it, one response: Women telling the stories of why they had to have a late-term abortion. Stories are the best, most effective way to fight stories. It's not going to change some minds; that's no reason not to change others.

[beantownbubba]

This may seem a bit obscure and overly technical to non-lawyers, but I think it's important and hopefully not too technical to understand. I'm happy to explain anything that's not clear. From a FB post:

The good news is that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas revealed himself to be the intellectual fraud and hypocritical asshole I have always assumed he is. The bad news is that he revealed himself as an intellectual fraud and hypocritical asshole in a majority opinion he wrote on behalf of the Court. In Franchise Tax Board of CA v. Hyatt. Justice Thomas, self proclaimed originalist, strict constructionist and conservative, actually wrote

"...there are many other constitutional doctrines that are not spelled out in the Constitution but are nevertheless implicit in its structure and supported by historical practice."

Or, IOW, the Constitution requires interpretation. Here's a challenge for you Justice Thomas: Distinguish your opinion in this case from Griswold v. Connecticut, where the Court held there is a constitutional right to privacy arising from the "penumbra" of express and implicit right granted by the terms and structure of the Constitution. Griswold, cases that have followed Griswold and the very word "penumbra" in a constitutional context have been the target of originalist and conservative wrath for decades, examples of the very kinds of judicial activism in which conservative justices supposedly would not engage. HAHAHAHA.

Not coincidentally, the actual issue in the case was whether the Court could overturn 40 year old established precedent. Conservatives used to be big believers in "stare decisis" (the rule that settled precedent should not be overturned absent compelling changed conditions). Guess what? Not anymore. Turns out that "conservative" justices are as willing as liberal justices to ignore historical precedent and stare decisis when it suits them.

I've already predicted that the Court is headed towards irrelevance, this decision just hastens the process. W/out the cover of supportable intellectual justification and with votes coming out exactly along predictable liberal/conservative lines, the Court has nothing.

[beantownbubba]

More musings that in a vague way tie together some of my previous musings:

First term senator Josh Hawley from Missouri, generally regarded as a hard right politician is in the spotlight of a column in today's WaPo. What's interesting to me is not his specific diagnoses or prescriptions but how he mixes a newish blend of traditional right, center right, center left and even a little bit of traditional left into his outlook. To be just a little glib, one word to describe that mix is "populism," but it doesn't seem like traditional populism to me. I suspect politics in general is going to move in this direction and I would say that at least a few of the Democratic candidates are doing some of the same things. I can't say I know very much about all 20-odd candidates, but I do see, e.g., Elizabeth Warren striking some of the same notes from the other direction. In fact, the reporter, James Hohmann, briefly touches on this overlap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 2a23883718

[beantownbubba]

I've already predicted that the Court is headed towards irrelevance, this decision just hastens the process. W/out the cover of supportable intellectual justification and with votes coming out exactly along predictable liberal/conservative lines, the Court has nothing.

I don't know if anyone is interested in this, but this was my response to a friend who questioned this conclusion and suggested that the Court's power will be maintained.

Trying not to write a law review article here so excuse the shortcuts; I think you'll be able to follow. The S Ct's power & authority comes from 2 places (1) Respect for its place in the system, i.e. the Constitution generally and checks & balances specifically. (2) Belief in some combination of the following: That the Court is impartial, that there is something called "The Law" that can be discerned by 9 wise people; that the Ct consists of 9 wise people doing their best to apply The Law and to achieve Justice.
The first suffers from a number of problems including basic lack of "civics knowledge". Think of all those polls that find that a majority would not vote for the Bill of Rights, all those people who think the Declaration of Independence is a communist manifesto, etc. In addition, belief in institutions is under great stress because of the norm breaker in chief, economic inequality and the impatience of various minority groups w/ the pace of change.
But the second is the important one: Does anyone at this point think the Supremes represent the 9 best possible choices? That as a general matter they are wise? How many think that the Court seeks in good faith to divine The Law and apply it, and that they achieve that result more often than not? And most importantly, these 2: How many people now think that the results of all important cases are pre-determined by the political beliefs of the Justices and how many think that one or more of the Justices are on the Court illegitimately?
As to the latter, plenty of people remember Merrick Garland & Mitch McC and will never accept Neil Gorsuch as legitimate. Clarence Thomas had plenty of doubters before but post- MeToo his credibility is, shall we say, lacking. Kavanaugh has his own credibility problems. As to the former, almost all reporting on the Court is now in the form of "the conservative majority this, the liberal minority that," the number of 5-4 decisions breaking down along those lines is considerable and growing and it's not even interesting sport anymore to predict the outcome of too many S. Ct cases because one can just add the numbers.
In a sentence, the Court cannot function w/out the goodwill and belief of a significant majority of the public and the absolute support of the other branches. The Court is churning through that goodwill and support at a reckless pace.
I think it's inevitable that if the Court comes out w/ some particularly controversial 5-4 decision some politician(s) will calculate that "respecting the law" is a worse gamble than refusing to enforce that judgment. And if it happens once, the floodgates will open. The Court depends on the other branches for enforcement and for funding and can do nothing on its own. Without the necessary base level of truly fundamental respect for the Court and what it does, it's only a matter of time before the Court is revealed to be naked under those robes, without respect and without...power. IMHO, unless several fundamental trends and realities change, this is going to happen, the only question is when.

[Zip City]

The Alabama Senate can kindly go fuck itself

[John A Arkansawyer]

The Alabama Senate can kindly go fuck itself

If only it could get itself pregnant!

[pearlbeer]

Pregnancy isn't an option as all of the AL Senators who voted for the bill were white men.

[Flea]

Pregnancy isn't an option as all of the AL Senators who voted for the bill were white men.

It's past time for double-X chromosome holders in the deep south to go Lysistrata

[pearlbeer]

Pregnancy isn't an option as all of the AL Senators who voted for the bill were white men.

It's past time for double-X chromosome holders in the deep south to go Lysistrata

I wonder what percentage of those Senators have had a vasectomy?

[beantownbubba]

For lotus, wherever he may be:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 9_c&wpmm=1

[tinnitus photography]

Pregnancy isn't an option as all of the AL Senators who voted for the bill were white men.

It's past time for double-X chromosome holders in the deep south to go Lysistrata

I wonder what percentage of those Senators have had a vasectomy?

willing to bet less than 10%

[dime in the gutter]

mueller is a boss.

[scotto]

mueller is a boss.

Mueller's presser translated: C'mon, Congress, do I have to do everything for you?

[Zip City]

mueller is a boss.

Mueller's presser translated: C'mon, Congress, do I have to do everything for you?

and Congress will do nothing

[scotto]

I get the caution and the desire to maintain decorum amid the shit show and the need to be politically expedient, but for fuck's sake. Two thirds of the government is now overtly pissing on the country and flaunting their desire to protect Trump & Co., while it doesn't take too much between-the-lines reading to see that the special counsel clearly identified high crimes and misdemeanors. So do we wait until it's too late?
The founders established impeachment as a mechanism to oust bad actors in the executive branch, not just as a fireside ghost story.
Isn't it time?
Impeach the motherfucker.