Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. I live in a strange universe with few people. My lib friends all think Trump is guilty of more than a mafia don and my GOP friends think it's all a witch hunt. Where are the people who think it looks suspicious and needs investigation but nothing much about Trump has been proven. Hell, Mueller hasn't said much anything at all. He's just filed some indictments. None on Trump. But there's lots and lots of smoke. Everybody I meet is triplehorn or sheeit. No TahoeHorns.
  2. There have been three confirmation hearings in my life (that I remember) notable for their below-the-belt ugliness: - John Tower - Robert Bork - Clarence Thomas These hearings made the whole confirmation process a lot more bitter. You don't have to agree or attack me. You could just present an alternative affirmative view.
  3. When I was at Exxon this was taken to an extreme. They set up thousands of companies. Every purchase of crude on the seas was done in a one-time-only company which bought the crude and then sold it. If any deal failed no other transaction was affected. I met a guy and that was his job to set up these companies. Boro snoro.
  4. The way bribes are paid is to launder them through a shady vendor who does legitimate service at an inflated price. If I'm a developer and I want to bribe the unions I buy cement for triple the market price. The cement company pays the bribe to the unions. Or I hire a consultant who bribes all the building inspectors as well as the legitimate consultants.
  5. I think legislative rules should be changed to reflect modern realities. These realities include: 1. The mechanism for convincing other legislators to support or oppose a motion does not take place in open floor debate. Open floor debate is utterly worthless. It is done for TV. Speeches are submitted and entered into the record as if given. Other legislators do not attend actual speeches. They do not attend hearings except when they are speaking, chairing or representing the minority interest. That's three people on a committee of, say, 21. 2. A Senator doesn't learn what's in a bill by a "reading". Bills aren't actually read. The official process doesn't identify revisions with revision date. 3. Rules can be changed with a majority vote but some key votes require 60. A rule is only a rule until it isn't. This is a formula for trouble. State, as well as the US, legislative bodies should have new rules.
  6. The problem with the Dem behavior on the Bork nomination was not their reasons for opposing him. It was their tactics in opposing him. They hit below the belt in a manner not seen prior to that. It began a process of ugliness.
  7. Two more appellate judges will be confirmed today. Voting will begin in an hour and last about an hour. That'll bring us to 21 of the 42 Trump has to fill. Of the remaining 21 seats 3 (Oldham, Bounds and Bennett) will get confirmed within a month, 7 more will get confirmed this Summer. I'm unclear on the last 11. I'll guess they all have to be named fairly soon (i.e May) to have a great chance at being confirmed before the Senate breaks for elections. It'll be a scramble unless the GOP puts a halt to stalling moves. The district judge situation isn't as pretty, mostly because the priority (for both parties) has been appellate judges. Trump has filled 17 of 164. Of the 147 remaining 32 are ready for a Senate vote, 40 are in the Judiciary Committee and will get confirmed this Summer. The last 75 need to be named soon if they are to get confirmed by this Senate (unless the GOP puts a halt to stalling moves). It is clear to me that the nomination "packages" have been heavily state oriented. For example, this latest package had a lot of the New York nominees. The White House has been trying hard to work things out with the Senators from each state to avoid "blue slip" fights. The White House had no trouble with some states (mostly GOP states). Some Dem states ultimately got worked out through a long process. Two states (Wisconsin [1 Senator], Oregon [both senators]) couldn't get worked out and the GOP did not honor the obstruction. Some states are still being negotiated. I expect a lot of the 11 appellate and 75 district to get named soon as "packages" are clearly in the final stages of negotiation. The drama is around big states like California (10 District and 5 appellate). Will things get worked out as they have in most states, or are the last ones all the most contentious?
  8. I do remember that. Can the Feds say that a state must fully support the enforcement of immigration laws in order to receive federal funds for, say, MedicAid? What kind of extortion is legal?
  9. My Holiday Inn Express constitutional law expertise says this is the correct decision. I think it's right for much more than gambling. I wouldn't let the Feds dictate a 55 mph speed limit. If they want a 55 mph speed limit they need to use federal marshals and federal courts. Telling the states to have, and enforce, a law isn't right. We should have state laws and federal laws, but not state laws dictated by the Feds. Certainly state laws should not be in conflict with federal laws, but I don't think it's right to have a "joint" law. But if I'm missing something, tell me.
  10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/buckle-up-as-mueller-probe-enters-second-year-trump-and-allies-go-on-war-footing/2018/05/13/e3d15fbe-546b-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b35b0bc69952
  11. I think Lt Gov is a step or two above her max pay grade.
  12. Do you think Twinkle wins? I think I'll vote for Ainsworth.
  13. Two more appellate judges confirmed. Scudder, 90-0. St. Eve 91-0.
  14. Five more to watch: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/387352-five-rulings-to-watch-at-the-supreme-court
  15. The appellate judge reported out yesterday (Hawaii guy) was reported out 18-2. Ted Cruz was one of the "No"s and the Dems were slobbering with praise. You should look at each one.
  16. I follow every stinking nomination. I know the spin of every stinking article. Do your own analysis if you want the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama I have more website with the raw info if you care.
  17. Witnesses can be impressive. Senators and Congressmen can't. They just read questions created by staff. George C Scott was not a great general. He was an actor.
  18. This is my view. I have a third reason. The power struggles among the 435 Representatives would be even greater. Today, when a Freshman shows up there are people there who decide what committees he will be on. And he's low man on the totem pole in the committee. I'm horrified to imagine a process like Boys State or Youth Legislature where everybody shows up thinking they're the Big Swinging Dick. How would you form a Telecom Committee and pichk the Chairman? What powers would the Chairman have? the chaos would be unbelievable. Add in that none of them would know how to spell telecom or if they did would have ties to special interests and you've got trouble with a capital T. Anarchy.
  19. Two things: 1. This is not going to be what he gets nailed for. 2. If he was selling insight I'll guess (with only a Holiday Inn Express right to practice law) he'd be ok. But I'll bet the house that the Koreans weren't buying his accounting expertise. We don't know the facts but we will.
  20. 7. Federal judges are appointed to a term of 20 years (not lifetime).
  21. We won't adopt anything controversial, but we can adopt good governance provisions like the ones I've outlined if we do so before the problem they're designed to avoid arises.
  22. Neither. As I explained before, it's like the way I feel about the head of the Gambino crime family. The process requires the case to be made. If I were making the call for myself I'd dump him. But I'm not going to tell the people who don't want him dumped that they should dump him until I have an argument that THEY should believe. I've said this many times.
  23. What Constitutional Amendments would you like to see which could pass? 1. The Supreme Court is fixed at nine seats. (I fear the war over the Judicial Branch will go nuts.) 2. The Senate must have 60 votes to cut off debate except for nominations, the annual budget, one appropriations bill per term, and any legislation terminating mandatory expenditures. The appropriations bill may not include any provisions which last longer than the term. 3. Candidates for President, Vice-President, the Senate and Congress must file independent financial statements and medical evaluations. 4. The President, the Vice-President, Senators and Congressmen must have all financial affairs other than certain holdings (e.g. $1MM and non-commercial real estate) managed by a blind trust. Any liquidations after taking office must be handled by the trust. 5. Changes in House or Senate rules require two-thirds vote. 6. Contributions over $5K to federal candidates must be made through new independent blind trust. The trust will be managed in a way that candidates do not know who gave them money. (The problem with contributions is not the money; it's the bribe/extortion dimension. If candidates can't know the source they can't shake down people and people can't buy influence.)
  24. Trump will be tried by the public. The question for the public will be: Was Cohen doing this to benefit himself or was he a bagman for Trump? If there is big money from Cohen to Trump or if there is money from the LLC to Trump I think the facts are inescapable. If the money comes out of the LLC to Cohen and spins around the world from Cohen to Bob to Billy to John to Trump, then arguing that Vekselberg or Novartis was bribing Trump gets much more difficult.
  25. I said that there will be one element which will have a profound effect on how difficult it is to prove: whether Cohen paid Trump large soums or paid him out of the LLC.
×
×
  • Create New...