[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2018-June-30, 10:19, said:

A judge makes a decision on a case-by-case basis, just as has been done for decades

Of course. But this does not get to the issue. There are a very number of refugees world wide. Not everyone wants to come here. There are a very large number of people in this hemisphere who have serious fear of violence where they live. They would like to go somewhere, and here is a reasonable choice from their viewpoint. I think Syrians would rather go to Germany than here, I think Guatemalans would rather go here than to Germany. I am not sure of this, but I think so. At any rate, it seems that Germany has to decide what their policy should be toward the large number of Syrians who would like to go there. We have to decide what we will do about the large number of people from Central and South America who would like to come here. While I might say "Let the judge decide", I expect a Presidential candidate, or a Senate candidate, would have a more substantial opinion. Decide on what basis? Perhaps they made a difficult journey and have no record of any substantial criminal activity. Does that suffice? I am not asking about what the current law actually says, I am saying that I expect a candidate for president to say what s/he thinks the law should be.

It's tricky. When Eisenhower, in the first election that I followed, said "I will go to Korea" nobody asked why he would do such a thing or what hotel he would stay at when he got there. People found the simple statement clear enough. Most people, including me, do not read long position papers. I might do so sometimes. Certainly not always on every issue. They need to find a way to make their basic approach clear.

Example: It is my view that we should try hard to help with the severe problems that the people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have. The primary focus should be on fixing the problems that are causing so many people to want to leave. That would be good for them since then they could remain where they grew up and have family. No doubt some need to leave, at least temporarily, and we should work with that.

I have no idea whether leading figures in the Democratic Party, for example Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, agree with this general approach. I think that they do not, but perhaps I am wrong.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-30, 10:59, said:

Of course. But this does not get to the issue. There are a very number of refugees world wide. Not everyone wants to come here. There are a very large number of people in this hemisphere who have serious fear of violence where they live. They would like to go somewhere, and here is a reasonable choice from their viewpoint. I think Syrians would rather go to Germany than here, I think Guatemalans would rather go here than to Germany. I am not sure of this, but I think so. At any rate, it seems that Germany has to decide what their policy should be toward the large number of Syrians who would like to go there. We have to decide what we will do about the large number of people from Central and South America who would like to come here. While I might say "Let the judge decide", I expect a Presidential candidate, or a Senate candidate, would have a more substantial opinion. Decide on what basis? Perhaps they made a difficult journey and have no record of any substantial criminal activity. Does that suffice? I am not asking about what the current law actually says, I am saying that I expect a candidate for president to say what s/he thinks the law should be.

It's tricky. When Eisenhower, in the first election that I followed, said "I will go to Korea" nobody asked why he would do such a thing or what hotel he would stay at when he got there. People found the simple statement clear enough. Most people, including me, do not read long position papers. I might do so sometimes. Certainly not always on every issue. They need to find a way to make their basic approach clear.

Example: It is my view that we should try hard to help with the severe problems that the people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have. The primary focus should be on fixing the problems that are causing so many people to want to leave. That would be good for them since then they could remain where they grew up and have family. No doubt some need to leave, at least temporarily, and we should work with that.

I have no idea whether leading figures in the Democratic Party, for example Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, agree with this general approach. I think that they do not, but perhaps I am wrong.

The main issue is helping solve the problems that make those in Central America and elsewhere flee for their lives and the lives of their children - but where are the Bobby Kennedys of today who can energize a people for good rather than bad?

[kenberg]

So. My main point in brief:
A man who should never be president of a PTA is president of the country, and the Rs control both houses. The Ds should ask themselves how this could happen, and if they cannot think of any explanation beyond the stupidity of voters and the actions of Comey, then they need to think a little harder.

[Al_U_Card]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-30, 11:56, said:

So. My main point in brief:
A man who should never be president of a PTA is president of the country, and the Rs control both houses. The Ds should ask themselves how this could happen, and if they cannot think of any explanation beyond the stupidity of voters and the actions of Comey, then they need to think a little harder.

"Let them eat cake!" comes to mind (not an exact quote, either) but quite indicative of the elitist approach and mindset. If they were really superior, they would never get caught out, but criminals of every ilk are just that way.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-30, 11:56, said:

So. My main point in brief:
A man who should never be president of a PTA is president of the country, and the Rs control both houses. The Ds should ask themselves how this could happen, and if they cannot think of any explanation beyond the stupidity of voters and the actions of Comey, then they need to think a little harder.

The biggest reason for what's going on right now is almost certainly FOX News.

The first amendment is a wonderful thing. But it has its problems as well. One of them is the emergence of an infotainment channel that spews a nonstop series of lies and mistruth and reinforces the world view of a bunch of narrow minded bigots.

[hrothgar]

Interesting claim:

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

[cherdano]

 hrothgar, on 2018-June-30, 22:15, said:

Interesting claim:

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

Sorry, this seems BS. Would need a LOT of things to be a legitimate story. (Why would his son ever be a target in the Mueller investigation? Why would there even be a remote chance of *his son's case* reaching the supreme court?) Doesn't need a lot to be a bogus story that spreads because liberals would like to believe it.

Any evidence for this claim?

[hrothgar]

 cherdano, on 2018-July-01, 02:36, said:

Sorry, this seems BS. Would need a LOT of things to be a legitimate story. (Why would his son ever be a target in the Mueller investigation? Why would there even be a remote chance of *his son's case* reaching the supreme court?) Doesn't need a lot to be a bogus story that spreads because liberals would like to believe it.

Any evidence for this claim?

Kennedy's son is getting dragged into the Mueller investigation because

1. Said son worked in a very senior position at Deutsche Bank and personally approved hundreds of millions of dollar worth of loan's to Trump at a time when no one else would do business with the man
2. Note that these are the same set of loans that originated out of DB's Russia desk and are being used to suggest that there is money laundering
3. Mueller first started subpoenaed records regarding Trump’s BD loans in December 2017

The issue is not that a case against Kennedy's son would directly end up in front of the Supreme Court, but rather, that the Supreme Court might need to issue rulings in the event of an impeachment and that these same money laundering charges might be relevant to the charges brought against Trump.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2018-June-30, 22:15, said:

Interesting claim:

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

I guess I would put this in the "Well, I suppose it could be" category. And I don't see you as claiming that it is much more than that.
Kennedy is, I think, 82. I am 79. There is a scene in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel that speaks to me, as maybe it did to Kennedy. A professor is talking with a friend saying that he enjoys his work but someday he will retire and give it all up. Later we see him at a faulty meeting as someone drones on and he lifts his head and says "This is the day".. I might be off on the details but that was the idea. The point is that I would not make too much of Kennedy appointing his clerk for October and then later saying "It's time, I'm outta here"..

I had not heard anything about his son. I imagine we will hear more. Stranger things have turned out to be true, but I think we can all wait on this, and we very possibly will never know just why now. I'm healthy, or healthy enough, but I get tried. I misplay hands that I should not misplay. I need a nap from time to time. I'm not dead, but I'm not 30 either. Neither is he.

I wish him a happy retirement.Think I will go lie down for a while now.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2018-June-30, 22:12, said:

The biggest reason for what's going on right now is almost certainly FOX News.

The first amendment is a wonderful thing. But it has its problems as well. One of them is the emergence of an infotainment channel that spews a nonstop series of lies and mistruth and reinforces the world view of a bunch of narrow minded bigots.

To expand a bit, I live in Oklahoma, which voted for Dennison by about a 2-1 margin. Very red. No matter where you go in this state, you will find the televisions in public places tuned to Fox. It is a 24/7 bombardment. For the Republican majority that lives here, their home viewing of news is tuned to Fox.

Why is this so important?

This past Friday, Larry Kudlow, the White House economic adviser, was on Fox, and he bald-faced lied about the state of the deficit and the results of policies - he claimed that the federal deficit was "coming down rapidly" because of the massive tax cuts of the Republicans, that the tax cuts were generating huge new economic growth and "throwing off enormous amounts of new tax revenues," with the result that "the deficit...is coming down, and it's coming down rapidly."

Then, a few hours later, he told the Post that his comments were about expectations for the future, that he should have said future deficits.

These are media savvy individuals, and their messaging was strategically planned to maximize effect. Knowing that the vast majority of Republicans get their news from Fox television and social media, the big lie was presented there as fact. This will be believed by the majority who receive no other input but Fox - and they are legion. That message will be re-enforced with social media over and over and on message boards and in online arguments.

The explanation came with via the written word in a low-by-comparison newspaper. Is it cynical that say such media savvy individuals knew that a correction in the Post would reach only a tiny fraction of the intended targets for their initial lies?

Do this daily, over and over and over, and lies become a type of truth - the truth of faith, of true believers.

[Winstonm]

Time to seriously consider packing the court - again:

From NYT:

Quote

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

[Winstonm]

Dennison, the ultimate snowflake:

Quote

“There’s probably never been a base in the history of politics in this country like my base,” he said, adding, “I hope the other side realizes that they better just take it easy.”

[Winstonm]

No collusion!

Lawfare has an interesting article on how the term "collusion" entered the discussion about Russian interference in the election.

1)

Quote

On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic National Committee. Two days after the release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

2)

Quote

Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after lie.” Neither one of them mentioned “collusion.”)

3)

Quote

Ninety minutes later, at 11:27 a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s “allegation of collusion between the campaign and Russia.”

4)

Quote

And three hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has to be dealt with.”

What strikes me most about this is how quickly both Manafort and Dennison Jr. jumped to deny involvement when the original statement was not about their participation but about the help given to Dennison by Wikileaks and Russia.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2018-June-30, 22:15, said:

Interesting claim:

1. Kennedy had already reappointed his clerks for October. He had no intention to retire.

2. His son has been dragged into the Mueller investigation which would force Kennedy to recuse himself if anything got brought before the court, creating a 4-4 split

3. By resigning, Kennedy helps avoid this, and if this happens to help his son it is icing on the cake

But surely Kennedy knows that his replacement is likely to be biased towards Trump. So the 4-4 split would become 5-4 on the Trump side, which is no better. Would he really retire just because of this one potential case, knowing the likely impact on so many other cases of allowing Trump to name his successor? I'd like to give him more credit than this, and expect that he has stronger reasons to retire.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2018-July-01, 14:02, said:

But surely Kennedy knows that his replacement is likely to be biased towards Trump. So the 4-4 split would become 5-4 on the Trump side, which is no better. Would he really retire just because of this one potential case, knowing the likely impact on so many other cases of allowing Trump to name his successor?

Kennedy WANTS a successor who is biased towards Trump
Less chance that his kid ends up in jail.

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2018-July-01, 14:23, said:

Kennedy WANTS a successor who is biased towards Trump
Less chance that his kid ends up in jail.

No chance for jail now. Quid pro quo for a presidential pardon.

[cherdano]

 hrothgar, on 2018-July-01, 03:03, said:

Kennedy's son is getting dragged into the Mueller investigation because

1. Said son worked in a very senior position at Deutsche Bank and personally approved hundreds of millions of dollar worth of loan's to Trump at a time when no one else would do business with the man
2. Note that these are the same set of loans that originated out of DB's Russia desk and are being used to suggest that there is money laundering
3. Mueller first started subpoenaed records regarding Trump’s BD loans in December 2017

The issue is not that a case against Kennedy's son would directly end up in front of the Supreme Court, but rather, that the Supreme Court might need to issue rulings in the event of an impeachment and that these same money laundering charges might be relevant to the charges brought against Trump.

Let me rephrase my point.

Up until your post, I had never heard of the possibility that Mueller might charge individual bankers who approved loans to Trump. Now that it is known that some of them were approved by retiring Supreme Court judge Kennedy's son, this suddenly changed.

Maybe we suddenly know a lot more about money laundering at the Deutsche Bank. Uhm, right - maybe it's something else that changed.

[hrothgar]

 cherdano, on 2018-July-01, 16:51, said:

Let me rephrase my point.

Up until your post, I had never heard of the possibility that Mueller might charge individual bankers who approved loans to Trump. Now that it is known that some of them were approved by retiring Supreme Court judge Kennedy's son, this suddenly changed.

Mueller won't be charging individual bankers.

He will be remanding cases over to other state and federal prosecutors.

[Winstonm]

 cherdano, on 2018-July-01, 16:51, said:

Let me rephrase my point.

Up until your post, I had never heard of the possibility that Mueller might charge individual bankers who approved loans to Trump. Now that it is known that some of them were approved by retiring Supreme Court judge Kennedy's son, this suddenly changed.

Maybe we suddenly know a lot more about money laundering at the Deutsche Bank. Uhm, right - maybe it's something else that changed.

The issue here is legal insomuch as the questions of whether or not a sitting U.S. president can be subpoenaed, indicted, or can self-pardon are not settled law. This means in all likelihood a decision would go to the Supreme Court if Mueller finds the president was involved in criminal activities.

That is why this particular choice is so critical. As I posted earlier, in the long run the supreme court can be reigned in politically be a future Congress simply adding or subtracting the number of judges on the court. This political solution has many precedents so it cannot be discounted; however, for that to happen would require a different and willing Congress.

[cherdano]

LOL, North Korea didn't even wait for a month after the "historic summit" (all news outlet) had "ended any nucler threat from North Korea" before completing their new missile manufacturing plant: https://www.wsj.com/...lant-1530486907