Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. Serious answer. The GOP is about 65 million people, not elected officials or party people. These 65MM people all have their own ideas of why they choose to ally with the other folks, and what they want. Usually it's because they think they can get what they want better by allying with that 65 million than the other 65 million.
  2. I predict you will be just as wrong about this as you were about Roy Moore. Roy Moore went down when GOP stalwarts like me and Senator Shelby (note the implied equivalence ) wrote in a GOP person instead of voting for Moore. Had we voted for Moore he's be Senator. Note also that Moore had essentially no national support. The RNC pulled out the day after I met with them. The GOP Senators gave him the cold shoulder and discussed ethics hearings to toss him. Your dystopian view of the GOP was 100% wrong there. For the 101st time these guys are smarter than you about when to fight. They play to win, not throw tantrums to no effect.
  3. If you're going to die, die storming the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944 so others can invade. Don't die on the beaches in December 1941 storming the beach by yourself for no good reason. For the 100th time choose the time and place of your fight.
  4. McConnell's objective is to keep Mueller on the job, not to embarrass Trump or fight with him. It also isn't to put GOP Senators in a tough spot. Voting on a bill to protect Mueller would cost a number of GOP Senators their seat. Why would McConnell do that? It's one thing to have that vote if the country needs it. If Trump were to fire Mueller then Congress would need to reinstate him. But there's no reason to walk the plank unless it's needed. You can be sure that McConnell has explained to Trump that he'll have problems if he fires Mueller. That doesn't mean Trump won't fire him but ...
  5. Dude, if Mueller's investigation is thwarted I'll be more angry than you. And I'll be doing things where it really counts, not on some Internet board I use for entertainment.
  6. Where? Here? I've listed hundreds of things I disagree with. Look, I've done something you haven't. I've laid out my position affirmatively. All you do is take pot shots, usually uninformed potshots at my positions. You don't understand what they are. You make up positions I don't have. Everybody can read my positions. If they care they understand what I say. I'm fine if they disagree. The fact that you don't understand what I've written (many hundreds of times over twenty plus years of Horn board posting) is your problem not mine.
  7. I do not believe that is happening. I think there are actors in the GOP who are guilty of your charge. That is what Trump is doing and he has some supporters. I think the GOP as a whole is working to ensure that Mueller stays on the job. Mueller IS staying on the job. Rosenstein is staying on the job. I'll bet the House that Trump has been warned, politely and behind the scenes that if he tries to materially obstruct the investigation that he will regret it. I think that's the right position. They're just going to have to live with Trump yammering.
  8. I have already said I don't approve of that. And I've said that the GOP can't get into a war over that sort of thing at this time. Governance and politics is filled with disagreements. Only fools fight every battle. The important battle to fight at this time is to allow Mueller to continue to do his job. The smart move is to ensure that happens and let the smaller stuff go.
  9. Next week I'd like the Senate to confirm (for the Circuit Court of Appeals): Kurt D. Engelhardt (Cal. No. 673) Michael B. Brennan (Cal. No. 690) Joel M. Carson III (Cal. No. 729) John B. Nalbandian (Cal. No. 777) Michael Y. Scudder (Cal. No. 780) Amy J. St. Eve (Cal. No. 781) https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf I'd also like the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings on nominees: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings How's that for a couple of items?
  10. Talking. Not doing. One of the sad things about politics is that voters confuse angry speeches with results. You need to decide what you want done. I want Mueller to be able to do his job and to make a decision about Trump after Mueller presents his findings. In the meantime I want Congress to do its job. There are going to be individual politicians yammering. Let them yammer. As far as the President, Congress can work with him, not work with him or remove him from office. Those are the choices. I want them to work with him unless and until he is removed. I am reminded of people at the customer service desk at Wal-Mart. You can get your money back. That's pretty much it. And that's easy to do. You can't get Wal-Mart to reform its practices using a 30 minute rant at the girl in customer service. Figure out what the fuck you want and how to get it done. Don't yammer, whine and pout. What do you want and how do you plan to get it done? And I'll give you a hint: If you want Trump removed when the Mueller report comes out you need to work your magic on the persuadable Republicans. They will decide. Tell me your pitch. So far your pitch sucks. I can assure you it sucks. If you want Trump removed now you are just screwing up your chances to get him removed when Mueller presents his findings. Decide what you want.
  11. Everybody reading this thread is smart enough to understand which politicians - among the few dozen leaders, the Congress, the Executive leaders, the judiciary and party officials - are tangling with Trump and how they are doing it, which are supportive and which seem to be biding their time. We're all smart enough to have an opinion on whether - say, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Tom Perez - are supportive, cowards or waiting for a good opportunity or good issue to resist. But we don't all seem smart enough to have the correct opinion on whether someone is supportive, a coward or waiting for a good opportunity or good issue to resist when the only thing we really know is that they are refraining from getting in a big fight at this time. You should ask why smart people like Pelosi, Schumer and Perez are not throwing a temper tantrum like you are. They know (and some of you guys don't) that the time to take on Trump is after the Mueller report when we all know what the facts are. Until then you're just guessing, wasting political capital, missing opportunities to govern, and risking making Trump stronger with overinflated accusations. Everybody smart is waiting.
  12. Which of these is a leader? http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-democrats-president-711525 They're nobodies. And there is a reason for that.
  13. It's about taking on Hitler, and how to win.
  14. ZERO Democratic leaders of note have called for Trump's impeachment. You can bet the House that isn't because they don't think impeachment is appropriate. It's because they understand power. They understand when to pick a fight and when to wait for a better opportunity. Every stinking one of them. They get it. Some of you guys don't. The dynamic is no different with top GOP people.
  15. You have a naive, simple-minded idea about how power works. There is a time and place to fight battles. People with significant authority can't and won't fight every battle. They also don't fight the bog battles prematurely. Regarding the German analogy the US waited 1.8 to 4.75 years (depending on how you want to count) before we invaded Europe and took on Hitler. We didn't go till we were ready.
  16. This may or may not be correct. I'm sure he didn't approve. I'm also sure that he needs to be very careful about acting on issues that he can't properly control. The Speaker is not a king or a first line supervisor who can have his way about everything in his domain. He doesn't have the authority to tell Nunes what to do and his caucus wouldn't appreciate it if he tried. His options (e.g. getting a new chair) require consensus and have consequences (e.g. other chairs say "that could be me; I like chair power not Speaker power.") If he picks the fight he has to win decisively.
  17. I'm sure he believes that court orders should be obeyed. I'm sure he believes he shouldn't express a public opinion on an issue which isn't in his court. It would come to him in the case of impeachment. I can't think of how else it would. Basic checks and balances.
  18. Paul Ryan says "I do my job, not the job of the Department of Justice". The Berkeley City Council says "I pass resolutions on the War in Iraq and child labor in MYanmar but I don't worry about the homeless problem in Berkeley." I'm more of the Ryan philosophy. But you knew that. I don't think dogcatchers need to have a position on abortion, gun control and gay marriage. I think they need positions on catching dogs.
  19. You're a rude moron. No need to answer you. Everybody with sense knows my opinion on that.
  20. Certainly. And the political process will be decided by GOP Senators and traditional Republicans who think pretty much as I do. We suspect a problem but we're not ousting the guy unless we're shown the facts. Show me that he had a deal with Russia, or that he had a money laundering operation, or that there was massive bribery in overseas development, or that he was doing illegal deals with the mob in NYC or Atlantic City. All these are plausible but I've seen nothing real. Mueller acts like he has something. Trump acts like Mueller has something. But I haven't seen anything big yet. I've seen inappropriate acts, sleazy acts and suspicious acts. I've seen conflicts of interest. Maybe illegal acts. But I haven't seen the stuff that says we've got a corrupt President who has committed serious crimes. Mueller may take his report straight to McConnell. McConnell (actually all the leaders of both parties) is smart as a whip. He doesn't lead; he interprets how his caucus thinks. All the leaders do. They're almost never wrong about reading their caucus. Everybody will know whether it's Nixon stuff or Clinton stuff. They'll know right away. They'll move fast and in concert. You'll know right away whether they plan to bounce Trump. Mueller will decide when this drama plays out. He knows not to play his hand before it's time. Trump is a formidable manipulator of the media. Mueller will have a clear strategy about whether and when to shoot at the King. He won't present a half-ass case. If that's all he has he won't go after the President. He'll know how to read the tea leaves too. He'll know whether his facts spell horror the centrist Republicans or not. If you want to read this find people like me because my wing of the GOP will decide this. If we say I'm out it's over. If we don't Trump is safe. And right now we await Mueller's investigation with an open mind. We want it to go forward but want the truth. I believe we'll get it and the truth will rule.
  21. When I become King of the US we will leave South Korea. And I'll tell the Norks that if they come across the 38th parallel their country will disappear from the planet Earth. And they would believe me, 'cause I wouldn't be bluffing.
  22. My argument was not a legal argument. It was a "getting bounced" argument. I have argued that the people and Congress will have some concept of what they find abhorrent or corrupt. It won't be a legal test, just as Clinton's sins weren't judged with a legal test. Imagine that instead of a Comey firing it was a Flynn pardon. Ask yourself whether it would have been a corrupt pardon. I think that's the way the Comey firing will be viewed by the public. That's the way I'll view it. Was it corrupt? Was it about protecting Trump? There are sleazy pardons (e.g. Marc Rich, Joe Arpaio). But that's different than a corrupt pardon. Tell me whether a Flynn pardon would have been corrupt.
  23. I worked (briefly) on several civil litigations where I thought the plaintiff's claims had no merit. One had been going for eight years and the defense had spent over $70MM, and that's at 1980s billing rates. I'll guess you could double it for today. They were in phase I of what could theoretically have been seven phases.
  24. I'm not following why some of you think it matters so much about things like the details of the Comey firing. As I see it he didn't want Comey investigating and prosecuting Flynn. We know that. What we (I) don't know is whether (1)Trump and Flynn were in on some crime together, (2) Flynn knew of some crime by Trump or (3) Trump knew of some crime by Flynn that reflected badly on Trump. Said another way, was he trying to protect himself or did he just not like the idea of the government going after a "good guy"? Firing Comey to protect a "good guy" is not going anywhere. You can create a perjury trap, you can expose some ominous details, and you can illustrate that it was even more inappropriate than we knew. But that dog won't hunt in Congress and I don't see it possible to indict the Prez over that (but what do I know about that). The thing that would play is if Flynn was working with Trump on something nefarious and Trump wanted to keep his own role secret. One way the obstruction is a bunch of nothing; the other way it gets Trump bounced from office. So tell me about what Trump and Flynn were doing, and I don't need any more info on the Comey firing. All the issues are the same. Tell me about the underlying crime, not the mechanics of obstruction.
×
×
  • Create New...