I love The Wire. My cousin, George Pelecanos, was part of the writing staff.
I do think that part of season 3 was the one moment where The Wire was too idealistic about a simple solution, though I agree with decriminalizing most drugs.
Comey is a little strange here. If he is saying that the memo is meaningless, why would it wreck the relationship between the FBI and the FISA Courts?
He has to be and that is the intent of Republicans by publishing this partisan memo. Nunez published conclusions - that Steele was biased because he said Trump should not be President,
To be clear, he didn't say that Steele was biased because he said Trump should not be President. He said he was biased because he was paid to do the opposition research by the Clinton campaign. That's pretty different.
I love The Wire. My cousin, George Pelecanos, was part of the writing staff.
I do think that part of season 3 was the one moment where The Wire was too idealistic about a simple solution, though I agree with decriminalizing most drugs.
Your cousin is George Pelecanos??? From my understanding he is the one who is most responsible for David Simon's shows having such a novel-like pacing. Is he also working on "The Deuce"??
I love The Wire. My cousin, George Pelecanos, was part of the writing staff.
I do think that part of season 3 was the one moment where The Wire was too idealistic about a simple solution, though I agree with decriminalizing most drugs.
Your cousin is George Pelecanos??? From my understanding he is the one who is most responsible for David Simon's shows having such a novel-like pacing. Is he also working on "The Deuce"??
Yes he is! Also worked on Treme and The Pacific.
He's the son of my mom's cousin, from the same tiny village outside of Sparta in Greece. The village next door is where Pete Sampras's family was born. Pretty cool for such a small area.
I love The Wire. My cousin, George Pelecanos, was part of the writing staff.
I do think that part of season 3 was the one moment where The Wire was too idealistic about a simple solution, though I agree with decriminalizing most drugs.
Your cousin is George Pelecanos??? From my understanding he is the one who is most responsible for David Simon's shows having such a novel-like pacing. Is he also working on "The Deuce"??
Yes he is! Also worked on Treme and The Pacific.
He's the son of my mom's cousin, from the same tiny village outside of Sparta in Greece. The village next door is where Pete Sampras's family was born. Pretty cool for such a small area.
It's my general belief that despite it's dramatized, fictional format, "The Wire" explains more about American society (especially inner-city society) than most actual reporting. In a very neat twist, Barack Obama actually sat down during his second term and interviewed David Simon. I also highly recommend anyone to read his book "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets". Impossible to put down. Anyway, there is no conceivable way you can imagine Donald Trump having this kind of nuanced conversation:
I love The Wire. My cousin, George Pelecanos, was part of the writing staff.
I do think that part of season 3 was the one moment where The Wire was too idealistic about a simple solution, though I agree with decriminalizing most drugs.
Your cousin is George Pelecanos??? From my understanding he is the one who is most responsible for David Simon's shows having such a novel-like pacing. Is he also working on "The Deuce"??
Yes he is! Also worked on Treme and The Pacific.
He's the son of my mom's cousin, from the same tiny village outside of Sparta in Greece. The village next door is where Pete Sampras's family was born. Pretty cool for such a small area.
I also highly recommend anyone to read his book "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets". Impossible to put down.
Well, it can't be that impossible, since I read the first 60 pages or so and then quit! -_- I really should finish it.
I agree with you about The Wire. It helps that the creator is a journalist. David Simon is brilliant, though I disagree with him on quite a few issues.
Comey is a little strange here. If he is saying that the memo is meaningless, why would it wreck the relationship between the FBI and the FISA Courts?
He has to be and that is the intent of Republicans by publishing this partisan memo. Nunez published conclusions - that Steele was biased because he said Trump should not be President,
To be clear, he didn't say that Steele was biased because he said Trump should not be President. He said he was biased because he was paid to do the opposition research by the Clinton campaign. That's pretty different.
I don't get the problem.
Let's apply this to the police. The police are paid by the State to investigate criminals. Lets say they find a criminal. Is it a real argument to say a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves because the biased police, paid by the state, caught the criminal. The police said that criminals should not be running around free and the police were desperate that criminals not be allowed to commit more crimes. Throw out the investigation because this is total proof that the police are biased against criminals! That's the Republican argument.
It's not a real report.
When lawyers are in court and law enforcement are making their case they don't rely on stuff like bias and innuendo, they are supposed to lay out facts, DNA and so forth. The FBI has said material facts are missing. Democrats have said stuff is missing - context. Why was Carter Page being investigated? Was it bias against a criminal - er Presidental Candidate - or was it the stuff that was uncovered was deeply disturbing to law enforcement officials and investigators? Page's own criminal activity had him on the radar before the Steele memo.
In Steele's testimony he said he found stuff that Trump and his criminal friends were up to and he felt he had to report it to the FBI. So he did. He was paid to look into Trump he found stuff that was really disturbing and he reported it. Republicans are trying to make it a big deal that he was looking into Trump - and not address the stuff he found.
Look Nunez is a Republican politician who was part of the Trump transition team. He or his people crafted this memo to draw false assumptions and makes leaps of judgement based on omission to try and persuade people.
It's a GOP political document.
The whole "biased against trump" hocus pocus in there makes that memo the political hit job - against investigators doing their job.
I'd also like to point out that a former federal judge I saw interviewed on TV tonight said that FISA applications are typically 50-100 pages long. There is no possible way this 4-page memo can address the extent of what was in that application. It seems to me that releasing such a truncated, grade-school level document is simply an attempt to prey on the public's total lack of knowledge on the subject. Did anyone else know FISA applications were that long?? I sure didn't......
If they were going to release this, and we are going to have this discussion in the public at large (even though we don't really know anything about it as regular citizens), then the only fair way to have that discussion is to show us the full application for the FISA warrant. And there is a reason we aren't seeing it.
According to this report in the Washington Post, the central claim (at least the central claim that people could legitimately have a beef with if it was true) is a lie. The Justice Department is saying it. The Democrats on the intelligence committee are saying it, newspapers are now reporting it. Even people I hate with every fiber of my being like Trey Gowdy and Joe Walsh (hard-right Congressman and former Congressman) are saying it. The only people sticking to this story are Devin Nunes, Trump's contingent in the House, and the White House. As far as I can tell (aside from John McCain's admonishing of the release today) Senate Republicans are stone-silent. They don't want to be tarred with this either.
Also (and this is on FOX News of all places, who OCCASIONALLY outside their morning and prime-time lineup accidentally run into the truth):
Brett Baier: "Did you read the actual FISA applications?"
Devin Nunes: "No I did not."
I mean.....is this an elaborate prank?? What is this??
I'd also like to point out that a former federal judge I saw interviewed on TV tonight said that FISA applications are typically 50-100 pages long. There is no possible way this 4-page memo can address the extent of what was in that application. It seems to me that releasing such a truncated, grade-school level document is simply an attempt to prey on the public's total lack of knowledge on the subject. Did anyone else know FISA applications were that long?? I sure didn't......
If they were going to release this, and we are going to have this discussion in the public at large (even though we don't really know anything about it as regular citizens), then the only fair way to have that discussion is to show us the full application for the FISA warrant. And there is a reason we aren't seeing it.
I did jury duty once where the guy was accused of drunk driving. The prosecution laid out it's case - the guy was going this fast clocked using Acme brand radar calibrated that day and several witnesses said they saw what happened and provided statements, it was all fact based stuff. The defense got up there and tried to muddy the air with "well maybe it was the one armed man and the wind was blowing.." trying to instill doubt. It didn't take long to render a verdict once you quit letting your mind wander along the "what ifs" that the Defense was trying to use.
That's what this Nunez memo is it's trying to muddy the waters for the defense. It's drawing knowingly fake conclusions - that Nunez thinks he can deny if he needs to - and using them to try and sow doubt. It has worked. And it has the advantage that the people with the proof can't present it because it's classified and part of an ongoing criminal investigation so Nunez thinks he can lay out these false conclusions that will sow doubt in the investigation. He thinks that if, in the unlikely event that Republicans lose their grip on power and he later has to defend his actions, he could possibly claim "well I really thought the reason they investigated trump was bias not all that criminal activity!" But he probably thinks he'll never get called on this because Republicans don't want to find the truth - they want to end the investigation and investigate the leakers! that said that bad stuff was happening. Truly evil stuff here.
Why on earth would Nunes not have read the FISA applications if they were only 50-100 pages? If there were multiple applications, it couldn't have been more than a few hundred pages. It doesn't sound like too much work if you're going to release a high-profile public report about it.
In college I once spent 6-8 hours in the library reading and taking notes on a 400-500 page book. This is the sort of thing you could easily do in a single day.
Why on earth would Nunez not have read the FISA applications if they were only 50-100 pages? If there were multiple applications, it couldn't have been more than a few hundred pages. It doesn't sound like too much work if you're going to release a high-profile public report about it.
In college I once spent 6-8 hours in the library reading and taking notes on a 400-500 page book. This is the sort of thing you could easily do in a single day.
I just read that Devin Nunes first got to Congress when he was 29, and has been there for 15 years. Other than that, he apparently has a degree in agricultural business. He doesn't really know what he's doing.
But yes, beyond that....I mean, come on. If you are going to make this kind of fuss, hype this up as the END of the Mueller investigation, a scandal in and of itself worse than Watergate.....and you aren't even going to read the central document to your claim?? This is exactly what I mean when I talk about these Republicans having contempt for that 33% that is solidly with Trump. Nunes didn't even consider the idea that he would NEED to provide actual facts, or even read the damn FISA application. He just (correctly) assumed they would eat up whatever was thrown at them.
In addition, tonight, even the bastion of conservative thought for most of the last century, the National Review, is saying that, if anything, this memo blows to smithereens the central Republican arguments against the Mueller probe:
The Democrats have warned Trump that sacking Mueller or Rosenstein could trigger a constitutional crisis: "We write to inform you that we would consider such an unwarranted action as an attempt to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation,"
I think implicit in that is the threat that whatever the law is now it could be changed in future. So for instance Trump could end the investigation now and even issue himself a Presidential pardon. That still would not protect him if a future Democratic administration changed the law to retroactively make prosecution possible.
Would such a change in the law be a normal thing to do? No, it wouldn't. However, these are not normal times - hence the reference to a constitutional crisis. I think Trump and certain other Republicans should be careful for their own sakes, not just the sake of the country, about just how far they go in subverting the rule of law.
The Democrats have warned Trump that sacking Mueller or Rosenstein could trigger a constitutional crisis: "We write to inform you that we would consider such an unwarranted action as an attempt to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation,"
I think implicit in that is the threat that whatever the law is now it could be changed in future. So for instance Trump could end the investigation now and even issue himself a Presidential pardon. That still would not protect him if a future Democratic administration changed the law to retroactively make prosecution possible.
Would such a change in the law be a normal thing to do? No, it wouldn't. However, these are not normal times - hence the reference to a constitutional crisis. I think Trump and certain other Republicans should be careful for their own sakes, not just the sake of the country, about just how far they go in subverting the rule of law.
Nothing can check Trump at this point unless the Democrats at least take the House in November. Most of the country and the media will be up in arms, but we've been up in arms for a year now, and the situation just continues to escalate, the most important issue being the total erosion of political norms that were essential to a functioning government, but that were only standing in place because the people in charge were only willing to go so far in their quest for power. What we are seeing now is what happens when that quest for power goes off the rails into uncharted territory. Look at Trump's cabinet. Every week there is a new scandal. Now it's Ben Carson giving out nepotistic contracts to his son and daughter-in-law.
I am under no illusions that there isn't corruption and problems of corporate influence and general chicanery no matter what party is in power. But has anyone seen anyone as drunk on their own power as Trump and the Republican Congress is right now?? No other President since Nixon would have orchestrated what happened this week with this memo. None of them would have fired an FBI director to stop an investigation, and the spend most of the next year attempting to derail it. Reagan and Bush had Iran Contra. Clinton had Lewinsky. George W. Bush had the Valerie Plame situation. Nothing like this was done in any of those cases, at least not when the investigation was taking place. That may mostly be because they all feared attacks on independent investigations into their Administrations would have meant the end of their Presidencies. What we've found out is that Trump, for whatever reason, is able to get away with what was previously unthinkable in American politics. We've already gone well past anything that would have been previously thought of as an Event horizon. We're just floating in the void now. And with someone as volatile as Trump, anything could happen.
What we've found out is that Trump, for whatever reason, is able to get away with what was previously unthinkable in American politics.
My point is that getting away with something now does not mean he'll get away with it indefinitely. Normal legal processes (like issuing of pardons and statutes of limitations) can be done away with for good reasons - for instance that's routinely done in the prosecution of war crimes.
Trump is moving quite rapidly to a position where that sort of retroactive justice becomes a distinct possibility. That's for 2 reasons: - his disregard for the rule of law in the first place makes it far harder for him to rely on standard protections. - the increasingly partisan politics makes it much more likely that Democrats will initially use the threat of future prosecution and then, if they do take power, find it hard to back away from that even if they later have second thoughts about whether that would be wise.
You aren't wrong about any of this, but this really isn't what Republicans are arguing or objecting to. Or, if they are, they just did a complete 180 on their policy position on FISA in the last month. Republican lawmakers were so in love with FISA during the Bush Administration after 9/11 that they should have taken it on a honeymoon. NOW, today, it's an issue?? Come on......
I wasn't trying to paraphrase the Republican concerns, only my own. I guess I could dig out the FISA thread from my other board and link it here.
I think implicit in that is the threat that whatever the law is now it could be changed in future. So for instance Trump could end the investigation now and even issue himself a Presidential pardon. That still would not protect him if a future Democratic administration changed the law to retroactively make prosecution possible.
Is that possible? I didn't think laws could be passed which could retroactively make something a crime.
Firing Rosenstein to put in a proxy to fire Mueller would definitely be impeachable, though.
You aren't wrong about any of this, but this really isn't what Republicans are arguing or objecting to. Or, if they are, they just did a complete 180 on their policy position on FISA in the last month. Republican lawmakers were so in love with FISA during the Bush Administration after 9/11 that they should have taken it on a honeymoon. NOW, today, it's an issue?? Come on......
I wasn't trying to paraphrase the Republican concerns, only my own. I guess I could dig out the FISA thread from my other board and link it here.
I think implicit in that is the threat that whatever the law is now it could be changed in future. So for instance Trump could end the investigation now and even issue himself a Presidential pardon. That still would not protect him if a future Democratic administration changed the law to retroactively make prosecution possible.
Is that possible? I didn't think laws could be passed which could retroactively make something a crime.
Firing Rosenstein to put in a proxy to fire Mueller would definitely be impeachable, though.
Impeachment is a political remedy. It doesn't have alot to do with legality. No matter what Mueller comes back with (and I find it very hard to believe at this point he isn't going to AT LEAST conclude that Trump was personally engaged in obstruction of justice), he isn't going to personally indict the President. I'm not even sure that he can. I believe he can make the recommendation for prosecution or impeachment proceedings, or provide the framework for them (like Ken Starr did), but it would be VERY surprising if Mueller took that step himself. And with THIS Republican Congress, Mueller's findings may not be worth the paper they are printed on when it comes to actual results. And as you've mentioned before, what would it matter anyway?? If this man, Donald Trump (and everything we know about him) is pushed to the brink, he will not hesitate to start pardoning everyone within eyesight, up to and including himself. He doesn't fear consequences, may not even believe they exist for him, since they never really have. Everything about the last 12 months would reinforce the idea that he could get away with nearly anything.
Trump's major problem from what we know so far is the firing of Comey, and whatever took place when he dictated the false press release about Don Jr.'s meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower. And the New York Times report about Hope Hicks having a conversation with him about those emails never getting out, without a lawyer involved in the conversation, is a big red flag. Those type of acts and statements can be used as evidence in an obstruction case, because it is mostly a crime of intent. And many people thought the resignation of his legal spokesman Mark Corallo at the time it happend, was very significant. Months later, we know why. He quit because he was so concerned about getting wrapped up in an obstruction web. And he is singing to Mueller within the next two weeks. Beyond that, Rick Gates, Manafort's #2, one of the 4 indicted so far, had 3 of his lawyers quit late this week. The only one who stayed on specializes in plea agreements.
Is that possible? I didn't think laws could be passed which could retroactively make something a crime.
It's much easier in the UK where Parliament is sovereign, so retroactive laws can be passed in the same way as others. There's still a convention that this should not normally be done, but it still is done quite regularly. I mentioned earlier the issue of war crimes, but other examples include criminalizing child sex abuse done outside the UK and allowing the re-prosecution of people already acquitted on murder charges. As you might expect a common use of this power relates to tax avoidance schemes.
In the US retroactive legislation is prohibited by the constitution, so the process wouldn't be as straight-forward. However, in a constitutional crisis anything goes. It's not that difficult to foresee how dangerous continuing down this line could be, however. For instance it's conceivable that in the future Democrats would have enough control in the House, Senate and Presidency to amend the constitution - but that Supreme Court judges originally appointed by Republicans would try to block that. Things could get messy at that point as it would no longer be clear what the 'rule of law' means.
@Grond0: The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to strike down constitutional amendments as unconstitutional. While passing a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult in the American system and requires heavy supporter from both houses of Congress as well as the President, the Supreme Court cannot block it. The Supreme Court can only strike down bills.
Otherwise, we'd have the remarkable situation where Congress could pass an amendment modifying the Constitution and then the Supreme Court could strike it down on the grounds that it wasn't already in the Constitution.
@Grond0: The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to strike down constitutional amendments as unconstitutional. While passing a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult in the American system and requires heavy supporter from both houses of Congress as well as the President, the Supreme Court cannot block it. The Supreme Court can only strike down bills.
Otherwise, we'd have the remarkable situation where Congress could pass an amendment modifying the Constitution and then the Supreme Court could strike it down on the grounds that it wasn't already in the Constitution.
Yes, the Supreme Court's main function is to declare whether something is actually constitutional (depending on how the individual Justices view the Constitution, since if you look at the opinions of Samuel Alito vs. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you'd often have to assume they were reading different documents entirely). Once an Amendment is added to the Constitution, it is out of the Supreme Court's hands. But that doesn't necessarily stop them from interpreting the Constitution or Amendment in such a way that it is much like de facto nullification of that Amendment, or reading way too much into an Amendment on the opposite end of the spectrum. 2nd and 4th Amendment issues are ripe for this kind of dispute on the court. Once a case reaches them, there is no entity in the United States Government more powerful than the Supreme Court, including the President. Most recently, they made George W. Bush President, and forever ingrained (barring an Amendment) the flow of unlimited money into politics.
@Grond0: The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to strike down constitutional amendments as unconstitutional. While passing a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult in the American system and requires heavy supporter from both houses of Congress as well as the President, the Supreme Court cannot block it. The Supreme Court can only strike down bills.
Otherwise, we'd have the remarkable situation where Congress could pass an amendment modifying the Constitution and then the Supreme Court could strike it down on the grounds that it wasn't already in the Constitution.
@semiticgod I deliberately used the wording that the Supreme Court "would try to block that." As I indicated you're really in uncharted waters at that point, but the Supreme Court wouldn't try to block it on the grounds that the amendment itself was unconstitutional, but on an unrelated pretext (such as procedural flaws). Or, as @jjstraka34 says, they could rely on some 'creative' interpretation.
The point is that once you get branches of government deliberately fighting against each other the outcome is uncertain.
I suppose it's possible that the Supreme Court could attempt to give itself the power to strike down constitutional amendments. After all, in Marbury vs. Madison, it gave itself the power to strike down bills. The Supreme Court's most famous power doesn't come from the Constitution; it gave itself that power!
What we've found out is that Trump, for whatever reason, is able to get away with what was previously unthinkable in American politics.
My point is that getting away with something now does not mean he'll get away with it indefinitely. Normal legal processes (like issuing of pardons and statutes of limitations) can be done away with for good reasons - for instance that's routinely done in the prosecution of war crimes.
Trump is moving quite rapidly to a position where that sort of retroactive justice becomes a distinct possibility. That's for 2 reasons: - his disregard for the rule of law in the first place makes it far harder for him to rely on standard protections. - the increasingly partisan politics makes it much more likely that Democrats will initially use the threat of future prosecution and then, if they do take power, find it hard to back away from that even if they later have second thoughts about whether that would be wise.
I'm sure the threat of future prosecution will not un-nerve Trump or Republicans much.
They believe they will always be in power. This is part blind overconfidence, part strategy they are willing to do anything to achieve.
They are willing to do anything and are doing anything. They strip voting rolls, cry about voter fraud in order to kick people off the voting rolls, they close polling stations in places they don't want people to vote, they gerrymander like crazy, they will ignore court rulings they don't like figuring the Supreme Court where they've got a majority will back them, they ignore congress (like Russian Sanctions being ignored) and rule through majority rules party lines (tax cuts and obamacare repeal attempts).
They only need to get approval of other government Republicans and after all they're all one big happy family funded by the Koch Brothers and the Mercers and other billionaires.
For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down state maps that were heavily gerrymandered and told the Republicans there to draw new maps and provide data to do it. The Republicans there refused. There is no state appeal - it's a state case and the highest court in the state has ruled but they just won't do it. They know nothing will happen, they don't care. They are lawless. They appealed to the Supreme Court because why not? They've packed that court they might get lucky. With Trump appointing another Judge or two possibly (thanks Mitch) it's possible that the Supreme Court might be insane right wing very soon and be the "get out of jail free" card that Republicans want it to be. Maybe it already is that.
Do you have any problems with that? Why you must be the lying mainstream media! If you watch state TV (Fox News) you'll see everything is great except for the stuff that is not and that's Democrats fault and immigrants all of which are the same as MS-13.
In a similar situation to what @smeagolheart mentions about Pennsylvania, Scott Walker is simply refusing to hold a special election for open State Congressional seats in Wisconsin. They are supposed to be scheduled and taking place, he just....isn't doing it. Multiple districts in Wisconsin are without representation because he is afraid of the current climate.
And it reminds me of another situation that took place a few years ago. The Nebraska legislature ended the death penalty in the State. The governor vetoed it. The legislature overrode the veto. At least at the time, when I heard about the story, the governor said he didn't care, and that he was going to keep executing prisoners anyway.
I keep harping on it, but this is what happens when these political norms fall apart. We are looking at three concrete examples of Republican governments on the state level just engaging in what is essentially nullification. You're ordered to redraw the maps by the State Supreme Court?? Refuse to do it. You're supposed to hold elections of open seats?? Don't hold the elections. Legislature abolishes the death penalty?? Threaten to keep executing prisoners anyway. Again, they've learned (mostly very recently) that NO ONE is going to stop them. There is no mechanism or safeguard against this behavior.
How long is it going to be before an incumbent who loses an election just refuses to accept the results and leave office?? I mean, a precursor to this already happened in North Carolina. In 2016, the Democrat won a very narrow victory in the race for governor. In the lame duck session, the super-majority in the Republican State legislature then passed a law that basically stripped the North Carolina governorship of all major power. These aren't isolated incidents. Just last week, one branch of the Alabama legislature, in response to Roy Moore losing, passed a bill that gets rid of special elections for Senate seats. This is a pervasive pattern around the country.
One party may be a bit too far to the left for many people in their personal politics (that would be the Democrats). But the other one, on every level, continues to just march headlong into autocracy. People need to understand this. Republicans are ASSAULTING voting rights on every level, everywhere they can. If, by chance, a Democrat does win in a red state, they then spring into action to implement laws and policies to make sure it never happens again. Democrats are not engaged in this behavior. There isn't any effort anywhere to keep as many white, rural voters from exercising their constitutional right as possible. If anyone can find an example, I challenge them to do so. I'm willing to listen. But I don't think there are any examples to find.
I'm sure the threat of future prosecution will not un-nerve Trump or Republicans much.
I don't suppose it will and, even if it did, I expect that Trump would try and stay in power now to put off the evil day. My concern wasn't really with Trump directly though, but the corrosive effect of his actions on legal norms that have already been weakened in recent years. As I suggested earlier I think it's quite possible that the Democrats would get themselves into a situation where they were unable to re-establish those norms even if they did get into power. A constitutional convention might be a route to do that in different times, but with feelings running so high in partisan politics I can't see that being a realistic option at the moment.
I'm trying to search my mind for what exactly would cause these people to speak to this woman this way, face to face, after having heard her history and story explained to them, and I honestly cannot wrap my head around it. If Trump is playing to people like this, where is the room for negotiation on this issue?? At least 4 of the people in that group seem to lack any ability to empathize at all. It seems to me that this may just come down to the fact that, for a certain percentage of the population, making sure someone else is at the bottom of the totem pole is a real, tangible psychological need. And Trump is basically fulfilling that need for them.
I thought about posting that the other day. It's horrifying, and it reinforced my sense that people are deeply ignorant about the immigration law status quo.
On the other hand, these people were presumably random schmoes pulled off of the street outside of Jimmy Kimmel's studio, which is on Hollywood Boulevard. So I'm not going to assume they're particularly representative of any larger group.
I thought about posting that the other day. It's horrifying, and it reinforced my sense that people are deeply ignorant about the immigration law status quo.
On the other hand, these people were presumably random schmoes pulled off of the street outside of Jimmy Kimmel's studio, which is on Hollywood Boulevard. So I'm not going to assume they're particularly representative of any larger group.
It seemed more genuine than those typical man on the street "gotcha" segments. Almost like Kimmel was begging them to please be better about the situation. Mind you, he choose the MOST sympathetic couple possible for the interaction. And it didn't even matter. But their suggestions to her would, at best, break up the family for a decade. And I have to ask, was this their #1 priority politically even as little as 2 years ago?? This dogmatic obsession with by the book immigration status?? Or were they convinced to feel this way??
I'm trying to search my mind for what exactly would cause these people to speak to this woman this way, face to face ...
they're deplorable morally lame people steeped in chauvinistic hatred, without a minimum of a natural sense or forethought of what's just and good in a society and in a republic. they're just pests.
Comments
I do think that part of season 3 was the one moment where The Wire was too idealistic about a simple solution, though I agree with decriminalizing most drugs.
He's the son of my mom's cousin, from the same tiny village outside of Sparta in Greece. The village next door is where Pete Sampras's family was born. Pretty cool for such a small area.
I agree with you about The Wire. It helps that the creator is a journalist. David Simon is brilliant, though I disagree with him on quite a few issues.
Let's apply this to the police. The police are paid by the State to investigate criminals. Lets say they find a criminal. Is it a real argument to say a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves because the biased police, paid by the state, caught the criminal. The police said that criminals should not be running around free and the police were desperate that criminals not be allowed to commit more crimes. Throw out the investigation because this is total proof that the police are biased against criminals! That's the Republican argument.
It's not a real report.
When lawyers are in court and law enforcement are making their case they don't rely on stuff like bias and innuendo, they are supposed to lay out facts, DNA and so forth. The FBI has said material facts are missing. Democrats have said stuff is missing - context. Why was Carter Page being investigated? Was it bias against a criminal - er Presidental Candidate - or was it the stuff that was uncovered was deeply disturbing to law enforcement officials and investigators? Page's own criminal activity had him on the radar before the Steele memo.
In Steele's testimony he said he found stuff that Trump and his criminal friends were up to and he felt he had to report it to the FBI. So he did. He was paid to look into Trump he found stuff that was really disturbing and he reported it. Republicans are trying to make it a big deal that he was looking into Trump - and not address the stuff he found.
Look Nunez is a Republican politician who was part of the Trump transition team. He or his people crafted this memo to draw false assumptions and makes leaps of judgement based on omission to try and persuade people.
It's a GOP political document.
The whole "biased against trump" hocus pocus in there makes that memo the political hit job - against investigators doing their job.
If they were going to release this, and we are going to have this discussion in the public at large (even though we don't really know anything about it as regular citizens), then the only fair way to have that discussion is to show us the full application for the FISA warrant. And there is a reason we aren't seeing it.
Hmmm, also this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-told-court-of-sources-political-bias-in-request-to-wiretap-ex-trump-campaign-aide-officials-say/2018/02/02/caecfa86-0852-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.feefcc54d9bf
According to this report in the Washington Post, the central claim (at least the central claim that people could legitimately have a beef with if it was true) is a lie. The Justice Department is saying it. The Democrats on the intelligence committee are saying it, newspapers are now reporting it. Even people I hate with every fiber of my being like Trey Gowdy and Joe Walsh (hard-right Congressman and former Congressman) are saying it. The only people sticking to this story are Devin Nunes, Trump's contingent in the House, and the White House. As far as I can tell (aside from John McCain's admonishing of the release today) Senate Republicans are stone-silent. They don't want to be tarred with this either.
Also (and this is on FOX News of all places, who OCCASIONALLY outside their morning and prime-time lineup accidentally run into the truth):
Brett Baier: "Did you read the actual FISA applications?"
Devin Nunes: "No I did not."
I mean.....is this an elaborate prank?? What is this??
That's what this Nunez memo is it's trying to muddy the waters for the defense. It's drawing knowingly fake conclusions - that Nunez thinks he can deny if he needs to - and using them to try and sow doubt. It has worked. And it has the advantage that the people with the proof can't present it because it's classified and part of an ongoing criminal investigation so Nunez thinks he can lay out these false conclusions that will sow doubt in the investigation. He thinks that if, in the unlikely event that Republicans lose their grip on power and he later has to defend his actions, he could possibly claim "well I really thought the reason they investigated trump was bias not all that criminal activity!" But he probably thinks he'll never get called on this because Republicans don't want to find the truth - they want to end the investigation and investigate the leakers! that said that bad stuff was happening. Truly evil stuff here.
In college I once spent 6-8 hours in the library reading and taking notes on a 400-500 page book. This is the sort of thing you could easily do in a single day.
But yes, beyond that....I mean, come on. If you are going to make this kind of fuss, hype this up as the END of the Mueller investigation, a scandal in and of itself worse than Watergate.....and you aren't even going to read the central document to your claim?? This is exactly what I mean when I talk about these Republicans having contempt for that 33% that is solidly with Trump. Nunes didn't even consider the idea that he would NEED to provide actual facts, or even read the damn FISA application. He just (correctly) assumed they would eat up whatever was thrown at them.
In addition, tonight, even the bastion of conservative thought for most of the last century, the National Review, is saying that, if anything, this memo blows to smithereens the central Republican arguments against the Mueller probe:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456063/nunes-memo-big-flaw-confirms-new-york-times-story
"We write to inform you that we would consider such an unwarranted action as an attempt to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation,"
I think implicit in that is the threat that whatever the law is now it could be changed in future. So for instance Trump could end the investigation now and even issue himself a Presidential pardon. That still would not protect him if a future Democratic administration changed the law to retroactively make prosecution possible.
Would such a change in the law be a normal thing to do? No, it wouldn't. However, these are not normal times - hence the reference to a constitutional crisis. I think Trump and certain other Republicans should be careful for their own sakes, not just the sake of the country, about just how far they go in subverting the rule of law.
I am under no illusions that there isn't corruption and problems of corporate influence and general chicanery no matter what party is in power. But has anyone seen anyone as drunk on their own power as Trump and the Republican Congress is right now?? No other President since Nixon would have orchestrated what happened this week with this memo. None of them would have fired an FBI director to stop an investigation, and the spend most of the next year attempting to derail it. Reagan and Bush had Iran Contra. Clinton had Lewinsky. George W. Bush had the Valerie Plame situation. Nothing like this was done in any of those cases, at least not when the investigation was taking place. That may mostly be because they all feared attacks on independent investigations into their Administrations would have meant the end of their Presidencies. What we've found out is that Trump, for whatever reason, is able to get away with what was previously unthinkable in American politics. We've already gone well past anything that would have been previously thought of as an Event horizon. We're just floating in the void now. And with someone as volatile as Trump, anything could happen.
Trump is moving quite rapidly to a position where that sort of retroactive justice becomes a distinct possibility. That's for 2 reasons:
- his disregard for the rule of law in the first place makes it far harder for him to rely on standard protections.
- the increasingly partisan politics makes it much more likely that Democrats will initially use the threat of future prosecution and then, if they do take power, find it hard to back away from that even if they later have second thoughts about whether that would be wise.
Firing Rosenstein to put in a proxy to fire Mueller would definitely be impeachable, though.
Trump's major problem from what we know so far is the firing of Comey, and whatever took place when he dictated the false press release about Don Jr.'s meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower. And the New York Times report about Hope Hicks having a conversation with him about those emails never getting out, without a lawyer involved in the conversation, is a big red flag. Those type of acts and statements can be used as evidence in an obstruction case, because it is mostly a crime of intent. And many people thought the resignation of his legal spokesman Mark Corallo at the time it happend, was very significant. Months later, we know why. He quit because he was so concerned about getting wrapped up in an obstruction web. And he is singing to Mueller within the next two weeks. Beyond that, Rick Gates, Manafort's #2, one of the 4 indicted so far, had 3 of his lawyers quit late this week. The only one who stayed on specializes in plea agreements.
In the US retroactive legislation is prohibited by the constitution, so the process wouldn't be as straight-forward. However, in a constitutional crisis anything goes. It's not that difficult to foresee how dangerous continuing down this line could be, however. For instance it's conceivable that in the future Democrats would have enough control in the House, Senate and Presidency to amend the constitution - but that Supreme Court judges originally appointed by Republicans would try to block that. Things could get messy at that point as it would no longer be clear what the 'rule of law' means.
Otherwise, we'd have the remarkable situation where Congress could pass an amendment modifying the Constitution and then the Supreme Court could strike it down on the grounds that it wasn't already in the Constitution.
The point is that once you get branches of government deliberately fighting against each other the outcome is uncertain.
They believe they will always be in power. This is part blind overconfidence, part strategy they are willing to do anything to achieve.
They are willing to do anything and are doing anything. They strip voting rolls, cry about voter fraud in order to kick people off the voting rolls, they close polling stations in places they don't want people to vote, they gerrymander like crazy, they will ignore court rulings they don't like figuring the Supreme Court where they've got a majority will back them, they ignore congress (like Russian Sanctions being ignored) and rule through majority rules party lines (tax cuts and obamacare repeal attempts).
They only need to get approval of other government Republicans and after all they're all one big happy family funded by the Koch Brothers and the Mercers and other billionaires.
For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down state maps that were heavily gerrymandered and told the Republicans there to draw new maps and provide data to do it. The Republicans there refused. There is no state appeal - it's a state case and the highest court in the state has ruled but they just won't do it. They know nothing will happen, they don't care. They are lawless. They appealed to the Supreme Court because why not? They've packed that court they might get lucky. With Trump appointing another Judge or two possibly (thanks Mitch) it's possible that the Supreme Court might be insane right wing very soon and be the "get out of jail free" card that Republicans want it to be. Maybe it already is that.
Do you have any problems with that? Why you must be the lying mainstream media! If you watch state TV (Fox News) you'll see everything is great except for the stuff that is not and that's Democrats fault and immigrants all of which are the same as MS-13.
That is literally where we're at.
And it reminds me of another situation that took place a few years ago. The Nebraska legislature ended the death penalty in the State. The governor vetoed it. The legislature overrode the veto. At least at the time, when I heard about the story, the governor said he didn't care, and that he was going to keep executing prisoners anyway.
I keep harping on it, but this is what happens when these political norms fall apart. We are looking at three concrete examples of Republican governments on the state level just engaging in what is essentially nullification. You're ordered to redraw the maps by the State Supreme Court?? Refuse to do it. You're supposed to hold elections of open seats?? Don't hold the elections. Legislature abolishes the death penalty?? Threaten to keep executing prisoners anyway. Again, they've learned (mostly very recently) that NO ONE is going to stop them. There is no mechanism or safeguard against this behavior.
How long is it going to be before an incumbent who loses an election just refuses to accept the results and leave office?? I mean, a precursor to this already happened in North Carolina. In 2016, the Democrat won a very narrow victory in the race for governor. In the lame duck session, the super-majority in the Republican State legislature then passed a law that basically stripped the North Carolina governorship of all major power. These aren't isolated incidents. Just last week, one branch of the Alabama legislature, in response to Roy Moore losing, passed a bill that gets rid of special elections for Senate seats. This is a pervasive pattern around the country.
One party may be a bit too far to the left for many people in their personal politics (that would be the Democrats). But the other one, on every level, continues to just march headlong into autocracy. People need to understand this. Republicans are ASSAULTING voting rights on every level, everywhere they can. If, by chance, a Democrat does win in a red state, they then spring into action to implement laws and policies to make sure it never happens again. Democrats are not engaged in this behavior. There isn't any effort anywhere to keep as many white, rural voters from exercising their constitutional right as possible. If anyone can find an example, I challenge them to do so. I'm willing to listen. But I don't think there are any examples to find.
I'm trying to search my mind for what exactly would cause these people to speak to this woman this way, face to face, after having heard her history and story explained to them, and I honestly cannot wrap my head around it. If Trump is playing to people like this, where is the room for negotiation on this issue?? At least 4 of the people in that group seem to lack any ability to empathize at all. It seems to me that this may just come down to the fact that, for a certain percentage of the population, making sure someone else is at the bottom of the totem pole is a real, tangible psychological need. And Trump is basically fulfilling that need for them.
On the other hand, these people were presumably random schmoes pulled off of the street outside of Jimmy Kimmel's studio, which is on Hollywood Boulevard. So I'm not going to assume they're particularly representative of any larger group.