I've been trying to follow this, but I was given the impression that while the SCOTUS agreed the NY can investigate his financial records, it sounds like this ruling was also sent back to a lower court for "work".
My interpretation is that while they essentially agreed Trump isnt above the law, they punted on letting the investigators do their work until after a lower court works on the situation more. The end result being that there wont be an investigation in time for the election.
That seems somewhat like a Trump victory to me
It's the other way round. The court agreed outright that the NY investigators could have access and Mazars accountants have already said they would comply with a court order - in a matter of weeks (after the full judgement is published) the Grand Jury could therefore get the information. That does not of course mean it will come into the public domain in the near future.
The return to the lower courts is about the Congressional request for access. While that kicks the issue down the road a bit, this ruling (like the NY case) is making clear the President is not above the law - even while in office. Trump will therefore probably not be happy - even though there should be no surprise about the rulings as they are consistent with past SCOTUS cases.
I've been trying to follow this, but I was given the impression that while the SCOTUS agreed the NY can investigate his financial records, it sounds like this ruling was also sent back to a lower court for "work".
My interpretation is that while they essentially agreed Trump isnt above the law, they punted on letting the investigators do their work until after a lower court works on the situation more. The end result being that there wont be an investigation in time for the election.
That seems somewhat like a Trump victory to me
It's the other way round. The court agreed outright that the NY investigators could have access and Mazars accountants have already said they would comply with a court order - in a matter of weeks (after the full judgement is published) the Grand Jury could therefore get the information. That does not of course mean it will come into the public domain in the near future.
The return to the lower courts is about the Congressional request for access. While that kicks the issue down the road a bit, this ruling (like the NY case) is making clear the President is not above the law - even while in office. Trump will therefore probably not be happy - even though there should be no surprise about the rulings as they are consistent with past SCOTUS cases.
So - reading that article. It sounds like even the prosecutor ruling for NY was pushed back to as lower court, and that until that situation is dealt with - the investigators will not have access to the records.
Am I misinterpreting that article somehow?
Edit - I'll quote the paragraphs that suggest this:
"In the most recent time Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with the court's liberal side in a high-profile case, he wrote for the 7-2 majority, "Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President."
The majority rejected the president's claims of absolute immunity from criminal investigative process and affirms the ability of the Manhattan DA to subpoena he president's financial records -- but the court returns the matter back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the president to "raise further arguments as appropriate." "
I've been trying to follow this, but I was given the impression that while the SCOTUS agreed the NY can investigate his financial records, it sounds like this ruling was also sent back to a lower court for "work".
My interpretation is that while they essentially agreed Trump isnt above the law, they punted on letting the investigators do their work until after a lower court works on the situation more. The end result being that there wont be an investigation in time for the election.
That seems somewhat like a Trump victory to me
It's the other way round. The court agreed outright that the NY investigators could have access and Mazars accountants have already said they would comply with a court order - in a matter of weeks (after the full judgement is published) the Grand Jury could therefore get the information. That does not of course mean it will come into the public domain in the near future.
The return to the lower courts is about the Congressional request for access. While that kicks the issue down the road a bit, this ruling (like the NY case) is making clear the President is not above the law - even while in office. Trump will therefore probably not be happy - even though there should be no surprise about the rulings as they are consistent with past SCOTUS cases.
So - reading that article. It sounds like even the prosecutor ruling for NY was pushed back to as lower court, and that until that situation is dealt with - the investigators will not have access to the records.
Am I misinterpreting that article somehow?
Edit - I'll quote the paragraphs that suggest this:
"In the most recent time Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with the court's liberal side in a high-profile case, he wrote for the 7-2 majority, "Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President."
The majority rejected the president's claims of absolute immunity from criminal investigative process and affirms the ability of the Manhattan DA to subpoena he president's financial records -- but the court returns the matter back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the president to "raise further arguments as appropriate." "
No - you're not misinterpreting the article. It looks like there's just a difference of opinion about what the court judgement is.
The Guardian's rolling coverage seems to be clear enough that the Manhattan DA will have access to the records as a direct result of this case. I also looked at a Sky News story before posting, which gave a similar picture (I wouldn't trust a Sky report as the sole basis for a story, but as corroboration it seemed OK).
The story you link obviously gives a different picture and reading further Jay Sekulow is very clear that further legal arguments will take place - hence I'm pretty sure that I posted too quickly and you've got the correct line in substance .
It's not a case I've been keeping an eye on, but I think I understand why the reporting seems a bit confused:
- in the Congressional case SCOTUS were specifically considering the judgement of lower courts that information should be turned over to Congressional Committees. Their ruling was that Congress could legitimately ask for information, but that the lower courts had not sufficiently considered whether Congress had made their case to get the information - the case should thus go back to the lower courts to be considered further. Hence Trump lost on the principle, but gained a delay.
- in the NY case, SCOTUS were not considering a court decision to release papers, but legal principles that would affect whether such a decision could be made. They rejected (no surprise here) the idea that the President was totally above the law and immune from prosecution. They also rejected (which must be disappointing to Trump) that there should be a "heightened need" for prosecutors to require information, i.e. the same standard of law should apply to the President as to anyone else. Technically they have thus not sent a case back to the lower courts, but in fact what will happen has the same effect, i.e. now that these principles have been decided the adjourned case will be free to continue (and the President's lawyers will be free to raise further obstacles such as claiming the records are legally privileged).
Sounds like the President is getting ready to either pardon or commute the sentence of Roger Stone. You know, the guy who lied to Congress on behalf of the president.
Remember when conservatives were defending Trump with a straight face about how he was interested in rooting out corruption when has asked the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son? I do. It was ridiculous then, and it's even more apparent now: Trump is one of the most corrupt presidents in the modern history of the presidency.
Sounds like the President is getting ready to either pardon or commute the sentence of Roger Stone. You know, the guy who lied to Congress on behalf of the president.
Remember when conservatives were defending Trump with a straight face about how he was interested in rooting out corruption when has asked the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son? I do. It was ridiculous then, and it's even more apparent now: Trump is one of the most corrupt presidents in the modern history of the presidency.
One of the most? I think he's head and shoulders above Nixon. He's done everything Nixon did but 50 million times worse.
Of course, what did people expect. He is a businessman who does what he wants. He never did anything in politics, why would he be able to run a country objectively as a representative of the people?
During his run he effectively reduced all foreign relations to nil, stopped support to environment, health care, orphans, immigrants and the poor. He cut so many corners with export and import and added taxes for the people while reducing them for companies just to keep the economy up and running, and now he is losing that to covid. He has nothing left in his presidency.
And all of this was extremely predictable.
Time for a Lisa Simpson to step up and get that country back together.
The idea that we should "run the country like a business" should be killed and buried, and then we should set fire to the land above it and salt the earth when the fire goes out. It was a always a stupid idea. The government is not a family budget. It's not a third-generation RV dealership. It's an apparatus that is there to function for a populace of 330 million people. It's not meant to turn a profit, it's not meant to have balanced books, and it sure as shit isn't meant to enrich the head of state WHILE he's in office. The government isn't a business anymore than an anvil is a tomato plant.
Interesting only in that I feel like she's saying this because her district is so red this narrative helps her.
Look, the national polling wasn't even off by a full percentage point last time. Hillary lost WI, PA, and MI by less than 1% each. Even if we assume there is some magical Trump vote that is engaging in polling subterfuge (which people just say exists but can't actually point to) to the tune of 5% points, then Biden would STILL be kicking his ass in these states by 3 to 4 points. You'd have to assume the polls are off by at LEAST double the margin of error, and even then, that basically puts those states in a toss-up. Nevermind the fact he now has to defend Florida, Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina, which shouldn't even be in play for Biden this cycle.
There is this idea that the "silent majority" is either not talking to pollsters or engaging in widespread shenanigans to alter them. This is really nothing more than an urban legend at this point. And I don't know if anyone has watched any of these retail store videos, but the so-called silent majority ain't all that silent anymore. They are more than happy to shove Trump support right in your face.
Joe Biden isn't Hillary, he isn't a woman, he isn't even really remotely liberal, and Trump's response to the pandemic is killing senior citizens and forcing the rest of them into isolation. Why is it so hard to believe a nearly octogenarian white guy who everyone generally likes would be ahead in this scenario??
Trump hasn't led in a SINGLE national poll since.....Februrary. He's only led in two all year. Out of dozens upon dozens. Every pollster (even Rasmussen) has had Biden consistently 4-12 points ahead for almost two months. 67% of people disapprove of Trump's COVID-19 response. That isn't going down anytime soon. I just fail to see what his path is that doesn't involve mass suppression or refusing to accept the results. They aren't DOING anything to alter that perception. They're just making demands about reopening things without offering any support or planning for doing so. It's an absentee government.
Trump did NOT want to run against Biden. That is evident by the Ukraine scandal even taking place. It was an attempt to end what he perceived as his greatest threat. I guess we're finding out why. Generic white-guy friendly to the Rust Belt and seniors looks like kryptonite for him. It's not just the surface numbers. The cross-tabs are even more dire for Trump. Nothing short of a vaccine by mid-September seems to me to alter this trajectory.
"I don’t believe it,” Slotkin says matter of factly. “Listen, if anyone tells me they can accurately predict what major events are coming in the remainder of 2020, I’ll give them a thousand dollars. I mean, this has been the year of black swans. … I don’t for one minute think this [presidential] race is safe in anyone’s column. I’ve been literally begging people to ignore those polls. They are a snapshot in time. And if 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that we have no idea what’s coming next.”
Buried deep in the article is this quote. And she is right. We're only halfway through 2020. Who the hell knows what will happen that'll make fickle voters sway enough towards Trump. Like Biden having to remove his nomination in September for whatever bad-luck reason the world wants to conjure up. Then what?
And that's basically the message. Don't take anything for granted. Fight for everything you want to accomplish because Trump won't go away quietly. He's fighting for his life and will do anything to save it. He's also locked up 33% of the national vote with his kool-aid drinking devote followers. THEY will vote but won't talk to fake news pollsters.
Interesting only in that I feel like she's saying this because her district is so red this narrative helps her.
Look, the national polling wasn't even off by a full percentage point last time...
Lotta well said stuff here. A second factor to remember about polling is that congressional Republicans did well in 2016. They outperformed Trump, they won the national popular vote. And polling back then expected them to.
Right now, generic congressional polling shows Republicans losing by just about the same margin as Trump (if not worse). What we have here, imo, is a second set of data that bodes very, very badly for Trump and his allies in congress. We know that this congressional polling did well in 2018 (it also did well in 2010 when Republicans won in a wave election too, fwiw).
As you also point out, Biden is up -- outside the margin of error -- even in states like Florida, where Hillary Clinton was never favored to win. It's a constellation of robust evidence imo. And bringing up 2016 to try and deny this is to ignore basic arithmetic (8 > 3).
He pardoned Stone. Like a coward, on Friday night. Stone was convicted, mostly, of lying to investigators. He was lying for the President. The President just let him off. This is not justice, or a functioning democracy with this man in charge. He must be trounced in November, or we'll be a banana republic.
He pardoned Stone. Like a coward, on Friday night. Stone was convicted, mostly, of lying to investigators. He was lying for the President. The President just let him off. This is not justice, or a functioning democracy with this man in charge. He must be trounced in November, or we'll be a banana republic.
This is what everyone knew was going to happen the moment charges were laid.
No one should be surprised. It's what America does because of Trump's actions is they key question.
America seriously needs to rip up its constitution and rewrite it. This presidency is bound to repeat if they don't.
"I don’t believe it,” Slotkin says matter of factly. “Listen, if anyone tells me they can accurately predict what major events are coming in the remainder of 2020, I’ll give them a thousand dollars. I mean, this has been the year of black swans. … I don’t for one minute think this [presidential] race is safe in anyone’s column. I’ve been literally begging people to ignore those polls. They are a snapshot in time. And if 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that we have no idea what’s coming next.”
Buried deep in the article is this quote. And she is right. We're only halfway through 2020. Who the hell knows what will happen that'll make fickle voters sway enough towards Trump. Like Biden having to remove his nomination in September for whatever bad-luck reason the world wants to conjure up. Then what?
And that's basically the message. Don't take anything for granted. Fight for everything you want to accomplish because Trump won't go away quietly. He's fighting for his life and will do anything to save it. He's also locked up 33% of the national vote with his kool-aid drinking devote followers. THEY will vote but won't talk to fake news pollsters.
I agree with not taking anything for granted and future events can certainly change the current picture. However, I'm not sure that's the message from this article. In the article immediately after the above quote, Slotkin was asked whether she was referring to the polls being subject to future change or being wrong now - and she is clear she means they're wrong now. She may well be sincere, but downplaying your support is an ancient political tactic to try and ensure people who support you actually come out and vote ...
"I don’t believe it,” Slotkin says matter of factly. “Listen, if anyone tells me they can accurately predict what major events are coming in the remainder of 2020, I’ll give them a thousand dollars. I mean, this has been the year of black swans. … I don’t for one minute think this [presidential] race is safe in anyone’s column. I’ve been literally begging people to ignore those polls. They are a snapshot in time. And if 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that we have no idea what’s coming next.”
Buried deep in the article is this quote. And she is right. We're only halfway through 2020. Who the hell knows what will happen that'll make fickle voters sway enough towards Trump. Like Biden having to remove his nomination in September for whatever bad-luck reason the world wants to conjure up. Then what?
And that's basically the message. Don't take anything for granted. Fight for everything you want to accomplish because Trump won't go away quietly. He's fighting for his life and will do anything to save it. He's also locked up 33% of the national vote with his kool-aid drinking devote followers. THEY will vote but won't talk to fake news pollsters.
I agree with not taking anything for granted and future events can certainly change the current picture. However, I'm not sure that's the message from this article. In the article immediately after the above quote, Slotkin was asked whether she was referring to the polls being subject to future change or being wrong now - and she is clear she means they're wrong now. She may well be sincere, but downplaying your support is an ancient political tactic to try and ensure people who support you actually come out and vote ...
I think it is this. Polling is a science, and has been relatively accurate in a macro sense for a while now. 2016 was decent, and 2018 was above average in accuracy. There's no reason to believe that 2020 will suddenly be massively different.
The volatility in the race is now from the polls being wrong, but from the fact that we are several months out and a lot can happen. It'll take a LOT for Trump to recover, but it's always a possibility.
"I don’t believe it,” Slotkin says matter of factly. “Listen, if anyone tells me they can accurately predict what major events are coming in the remainder of 2020, I’ll give them a thousand dollars. I mean, this has been the year of black swans. … I don’t for one minute think this [presidential] race is safe in anyone’s column. I’ve been literally begging people to ignore those polls. They are a snapshot in time. And if 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that we have no idea what’s coming next.”
Buried deep in the article is this quote. And she is right. We're only halfway through 2020. Who the hell knows what will happen that'll make fickle voters sway enough towards Trump. Like Biden having to remove his nomination in September for whatever bad-luck reason the world wants to conjure up. Then what?
And that's basically the message. Don't take anything for granted. Fight for everything you want to accomplish because Trump won't go away quietly. He's fighting for his life and will do anything to save it. He's also locked up 33% of the national vote with his kool-aid drinking devote followers. THEY will vote but won't talk to fake news pollsters.
I agree with not taking anything for granted and future events can certainly change the current picture. However, I'm not sure that's the message from this article. In the article immediately after the above quote, Slotkin was asked whether she was referring to the polls being subject to future change or being wrong now - and she is clear she means they're wrong now. She may well be sincere, but downplaying your support is an ancient political tactic to try and ensure people who support you actually come out and vote ...
Even though I'm extremely confident on the presidential race, I have no problem with Democrats publicly downplaying their position. As you say, it's good politics. But it's also critical for the race that is still competitive -- control of the Senate.
And I say this to anybody out there who is stridently progressive, liberal, left or whatever you want to call yourself. If you want a Biden administration that's more progressive, the best way to do that is hope and perhaps even do what you can so that Democrats win the Senate.
There was a time when I would have said pardoning Roger Stone isn't the right way to go about politically-motivated prosecutions, but that was when I believed that political issues could be discussed and debated. I had this crazy idea that people could be persuaded to believe in equality before the law, rejecting a two-tier justice system, using fear to enforce political orthodoxy, or safeguarding basic dignities that working class people deserve. None of this is the case or ever will be, so i'm in favor of anything that leads to a further loss of faith in this hopeless system.
I'm still wrestling with the correct response to the undeniable fact that the gatekeepers of american power no longer want this to be a free society, and it isn't anymore. The swift creation of a climate of fear and punishment for tertiary offenses to arcane doctrine in order to induce paranoid conformity for anyone not an elite has been completed virtually unchecked, under the watch of perhaps the most ineffectual, useless President of all time. To say nothing of the use of police and the threat of prosecution to intimidate political enemies even where no real offense has occurred, a hallmark of corrupt politics. The inevitable Biden victory will only strengthen and solidify it. At the very least, i'm glad I took a path that makes me more or less unable to be intimidated by social and economic pressure. They can't property away from me for counter-revolutionary activity, at least not yet. I certainly support anything that leads to a loss of global power and influence for the west, generally. At this stage I don't believe at all that it is redeemable, so almost anyone else holding the global reigns would be a better alternative, and at this point, would probably do a much better job.
Now that I think about it, there is very little difference in how China and the U.S conduct their internal affairs other than that the U.S lies a lot more about its motives and means and westerners believe their own propaganda with religious fervor. The Chinese social credit score- with its clarity, honesty, universal application, and apolitical uses- is infinitely superior to the Western version of social credit that is little more than another tool in the toolbox of political repression with no upsides or side features. Where China will strip people of political rights temporarily as a punishment and say so openly, the U.S will strip people of property, freedom, and political rights as a punishment and then lie to the public about it through their state media apparatuses, giving people the illusion of the rule of law. I prefer the upfront, honest route so I know what to do and not to do. China doesn't allow religious freedom, and neither does the U.S. The Chinese government forces churches and other institutions to parrot official propaganda- so does the U.S. The political enemies of the Official Party in China are subject to arbitrary prosecution and arrest on trumped up charges...do I even have to say it? These arbitrary prosecutions in China masquerade as anti corruption efforts and in that sense they do a far better job because, at least on paper, the punishments fit the crime and are universally applied. The U.S arbitrary prosecutions stick out like a sore thumb due to the political history of this once free society that at one point didn't react with cheer and glee at the thought of domestic political rivals being subject to dehumanizing repression. Just about every domestic political calculation in the U.S rests upon who is a friend and who is an enemy to the most powerful political party. China is probably better about that, they at least seem to care for the well being of most of their people.
The similarities become more and more striking the more I think about it and i'm surprised I didn't draw these conclusions before. Clearly, one side or both is taking notes.
It's a long time since I've been in the US, but my impression is that the level of social control exerted in China is vastly greater than in the US. Think of all the public protests there have been in the US in recent months - something that would be unthinkable in China (except in Hong Kong and that's recently changed there).
Although the US may be more polarized now than it's been in the past, there's still the opportunity to choose your allegiances and say pretty much what you like. I agree there are concerns about the current direction of things like freedom of speech and ability to vote, but I still don't see much resemblance between the situation in the US and a one-party state where protests about the power of the state will see you thrown into jail (and even this type of discussion on a public forum would be impossible).
I therefore don't agree with the overall conclusion you draw about the similarities between China and the US. The democracy in the US is self-balancing in theory - if one side strays too far from what people want, they will lose power. There have been plenty of concerns about Trump's presidency over things like corruption, health and international policies, but the most dangerous aspect has been the anti-democratic tendencies shown. However, while taken sufficiently far those have the potential to prevent the will of the people from operating, I don't think things have gone that far at the moment.
China is a very different situation. There's been an implicit contract there for more than a generation that citizens should give social and political control to the state in return for increased economic freedom and prosperity. That has worked well for the country for quite a few years, but I think it is a fundamentally unstable arrangement as it doesn't have a self-correcting mechanism. Economic freedoms can't be entirely divorced from social and political ones and China now seems to me to be about at the limits of what it can do there - meaning there's a high likelihood of the regime becoming more repressive, both internally and externally, over the next few years.
There's also likely to be a major problem of succession in China at some stage. Since Mao the Chinese have tried to avoid too much power being centered in a single individual, but that's changed in recent years. At the point that Xi Jinping dies or loses the ability to control others there could easily be a chaotic power struggle. That sort of thing has been hinted at with Trump, but the temporary nature of the US presidency means a president's control over others is pretty weak (as evidenced for instance in the current regime by the very high turnover of staff, Trump's inability to get states to do what he wants and the extent to which subordinates have refused to obey his orders). While some protests (including violent ones) from fanatics are quite possible, I don't currently expect major disruption if there is a change of government in January.
Not to mention our two party system, and how almost all of the blatant breaches of our constituition/proffesional norms have been at the hands of the a single party. Which also happens to be the less popular of the two major parties.
New poll has Biden up outside the margin of error in Texas (5%). Up 6% in Florida as both states report record number of cases and an out of control spread. The fact is, both governors are tied at the hip with Trump wanting the economy re-opened. They were vocal about it, and were blowing their own horn about how successful they were less than a month ago. Again, telling seniors to just suck it up and die already so everyone else can move on IS NOT an effective campaign strategy. It's electoral suicide.
If Trump's culture war strategy was working even a little, it would be showing in the numbers by now. As of this morning RCP (which honestly leans right in their aggregate by about a 1.5% compared to 538, so it's useful if you want to give yourself a buffer-zone) has Biden CLIMBING to a 9% average nationally. Point being, anyone with any sense would pivot off statues and the non-stop bitching about how everyone is mean to him pronto. What is Trump focused on this morning?? Defending how much he golfs and promising no one will tear down the Washington Monument. Guy truly has his pulse on the concerns of the nation.
Really conflicted on this. On one hand, I fully support the returning of Native American lands. Give them several whole states, or better yet, the entire country. The world would be better off without this polity as it is. While the national religion is to make black people idols of worship and the paragons of American injustice and suffering, it is Native Americans who are truly owed something. On the other hand, they overturned a really disgusting rape conviction. I struggle to think why that was truly neccesary in order to give them back land. Nobody would really complain if they just kept him locked up forever.
Really conflicted on this. On one hand, I fully support the returning of Native American lands. Give them several whole states, or better yet, the entire country. The world would be better off without this polity as it is. While the national religion is to make black people idols of worship and the paragons of American injustice and suffering, it is Native Americans who are truly owed something. On the other hand, they overturned a really disgusting rape conviction. I struggle to think why that was truly neccesary in order to give them back land. Nobody would really complain if they just kept him locked up forever.
I mean, it is unfortunate, but the question of jurisdiction was not able to be separated from the case. One can just as easily draw the conclusion that the woman who was raped is another victim of the US and State government refusing to abide by treaties that really have no room for interpretation. If "we" (as a country) can just keep changing the terms of the agreements on a whim, then they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Gorsuch actually has a pretty long track record on Native American land rights, so it isn't surprising he would go this way. He just doesn't believe doing anything but reading statutes and agreements in the most basic and clear-cut way. At the very least, he is an ACTUAL follower of this belief, and doesn't just pretend to be like Alito and Thomas.
New poll has Biden up outside the margin of error in Texas (5%).
Seriously? Can we have a link for this? Because this is absolutely shocking to me as a Texan. At most, I've only ever heard of people speak of Texas as hypothetically a swing state in the distant future.
New poll has Biden up outside the margin of error in Texas (5%).
Seriously? Can we have a link for this? Because this is absolutely shocking to me as a Texan. At most, I've only ever heard of people speak of Texas as hypothetically a swing state in the distant future.
It's a pretty large sample, at over 1500 voters surveyed. The pollster involved (University of Texas, Tyler) doesn't have a long track record to analyze, but what they do have doesn't suggest any substantial bias in their results.
And, of course, this is in an environment in which Biden has about a ten-point lead in national polling. Texas might well vote for a Democrat in this year's presidential election, but that's because the overall results are swinging so far. Texas as a whole is still well right of the national average and the "tipping point" that decides the election.
New poll has Biden up outside the margin of error in Texas (5%).
Seriously? Can we have a link for this? Because this is absolutely shocking to me as a Texan. At most, I've only ever heard of people speak of Texas as hypothetically a swing state in the distant future.
I still don't think Biden will win Texas. The fact that it's competitive is simply a terrible sign for Trump. If he is only barely hanging on in the Lone Star State, I don't see how in the world he is supposed to maintain his slim 2016 margins in the Rust Belt.
And I'm telling you, senior citizens, no matter how conservative, aren't enthusiastic about Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis purposefully turning their states into death traps (for them) to appease Trump (and EVERYONE knows this happened). People will forgive Governors making errors. They aren't going to forgive the willful ignorance and stupidity these two engaged in for the sole purpose of trying to boost Trump's reelection bid. Of course, ironically, they may have doomed it.
New poll has Biden up outside the margin of error in Texas (5%).
Seriously? Can we have a link for this? Because this is absolutely shocking to me as a Texan. At most, I've only ever heard of people speak of Texas as hypothetically a swing state in the distant future.
I still don't think Biden will win Texas. The fact that it's competitive is simply a terrible sign for Trump. If he is only barely hanging on in the Lone Star State, I don't see how in the world he is supposed to maintain his slim 2016 margins in the Rust Belt.
And I'm telling you, senior citizens, no matter how conservative, aren't enthusiastic about Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis purposefully turning their states into death traps (for them) to appease Trump (and EVERYONE knows this happened). People will forgive Governors making errors. They aren't going to forgive the willful ignorance and stupidity these two engaged in for the sole purpose of trying to boost Trump's reelection bid. Of course, ironically, they may have doomed it.
Trump is banking on a miracle cure at this point. That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Barring that, he's going down in flames...
Interesting article on why Trump should have learned poker. He went 'all in' on a losing Texas Hold 'em corona virus hand and the US voters are about to call his bluff...
Comments
It's the other way round. The court agreed outright that the NY investigators could have access and Mazars accountants have already said they would comply with a court order - in a matter of weeks (after the full judgement is published) the Grand Jury could therefore get the information. That does not of course mean it will come into the public domain in the near future.
The return to the lower courts is about the Congressional request for access. While that kicks the issue down the road a bit, this ruling (like the NY case) is making clear the President is not above the law - even while in office. Trump will therefore probably not be happy - even though there should be no surprise about the rulings as they are consistent with past SCOTUS cases.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/scotus-rules-trump-financial-records-subpoenas/story?id=71382157
So - reading that article. It sounds like even the prosecutor ruling for NY was pushed back to as lower court, and that until that situation is dealt with - the investigators will not have access to the records.
Am I misinterpreting that article somehow?
Edit - I'll quote the paragraphs that suggest this:
"In the most recent time Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with the court's liberal side in a high-profile case, he wrote for the 7-2 majority, "Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President."
The majority rejected the president's claims of absolute immunity from criminal investigative process and affirms the ability of the Manhattan DA to subpoena he president's financial records -- but the court returns the matter back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the president to "raise further arguments as appropriate." "
No - you're not misinterpreting the article. It looks like there's just a difference of opinion about what the court judgement is.
The Guardian's rolling coverage seems to be clear enough that the Manhattan DA will have access to the records as a direct result of this case. I also looked at a Sky News story before posting, which gave a similar picture (I wouldn't trust a Sky report as the sole basis for a story, but as corroboration it seemed OK).
The story you link obviously gives a different picture and reading further Jay Sekulow is very clear that further legal arguments will take place - hence I'm pretty sure that I posted too quickly and you've got the correct line in substance
It's not a case I've been keeping an eye on, but I think I understand why the reporting seems a bit confused:
- in the Congressional case SCOTUS were specifically considering the judgement of lower courts that information should be turned over to Congressional Committees. Their ruling was that Congress could legitimately ask for information, but that the lower courts had not sufficiently considered whether Congress had made their case to get the information - the case should thus go back to the lower courts to be considered further. Hence Trump lost on the principle, but gained a delay.
- in the NY case, SCOTUS were not considering a court decision to release papers, but legal principles that would affect whether such a decision could be made. They rejected (no surprise here) the idea that the President was totally above the law and immune from prosecution. They also rejected (which must be disappointing to Trump) that there should be a "heightened need" for prosecutors to require information, i.e. the same standard of law should apply to the President as to anyone else. Technically they have thus not sent a case back to the lower courts, but in fact what will happen has the same effect, i.e. now that these principles have been decided the adjourned case will be free to continue (and the President's lawyers will be free to raise further obstacles such as claiming the records are legally privileged).
Remember when conservatives were defending Trump with a straight face about how he was interested in rooting out corruption when has asked the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son? I do. It was ridiculous then, and it's even more apparent now: Trump is one of the most corrupt presidents in the modern history of the presidency.
One of the most? I think he's head and shoulders above Nixon. He's done everything Nixon did but 50 million times worse.
During his run he effectively reduced all foreign relations to nil, stopped support to environment, health care, orphans, immigrants and the poor. He cut so many corners with export and import and added taxes for the people while reducing them for companies just to keep the economy up and running, and now he is losing that to covid. He has nothing left in his presidency.
And all of this was extremely predictable.
Time for a Lisa Simpson to step up and get that country back together.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/10/elissa-slotkin-congress-trump-351513
Interesting only in that I feel like she's saying this because her district is so red this narrative helps her.
Look, the national polling wasn't even off by a full percentage point last time. Hillary lost WI, PA, and MI by less than 1% each. Even if we assume there is some magical Trump vote that is engaging in polling subterfuge (which people just say exists but can't actually point to) to the tune of 5% points, then Biden would STILL be kicking his ass in these states by 3 to 4 points. You'd have to assume the polls are off by at LEAST double the margin of error, and even then, that basically puts those states in a toss-up. Nevermind the fact he now has to defend Florida, Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina, which shouldn't even be in play for Biden this cycle.
There is this idea that the "silent majority" is either not talking to pollsters or engaging in widespread shenanigans to alter them. This is really nothing more than an urban legend at this point. And I don't know if anyone has watched any of these retail store videos, but the so-called silent majority ain't all that silent anymore. They are more than happy to shove Trump support right in your face.
Joe Biden isn't Hillary, he isn't a woman, he isn't even really remotely liberal, and Trump's response to the pandemic is killing senior citizens and forcing the rest of them into isolation. Why is it so hard to believe a nearly octogenarian white guy who everyone generally likes would be ahead in this scenario??
Trump hasn't led in a SINGLE national poll since.....Februrary. He's only led in two all year. Out of dozens upon dozens. Every pollster (even Rasmussen) has had Biden consistently 4-12 points ahead for almost two months. 67% of people disapprove of Trump's COVID-19 response. That isn't going down anytime soon. I just fail to see what his path is that doesn't involve mass suppression or refusing to accept the results. They aren't DOING anything to alter that perception. They're just making demands about reopening things without offering any support or planning for doing so. It's an absentee government.
Trump did NOT want to run against Biden. That is evident by the Ukraine scandal even taking place. It was an attempt to end what he perceived as his greatest threat. I guess we're finding out why. Generic white-guy friendly to the Rust Belt and seniors looks like kryptonite for him. It's not just the surface numbers. The cross-tabs are even more dire for Trump. Nothing short of a vaccine by mid-September seems to me to alter this trajectory.
Buried deep in the article is this quote. And she is right. We're only halfway through 2020. Who the hell knows what will happen that'll make fickle voters sway enough towards Trump. Like Biden having to remove his nomination in September for whatever bad-luck reason the world wants to conjure up. Then what?
And that's basically the message. Don't take anything for granted. Fight for everything you want to accomplish because Trump won't go away quietly. He's fighting for his life and will do anything to save it. He's also locked up 33% of the national vote with his kool-aid drinking devote followers. THEY will vote but won't talk to fake news pollsters.
Lotta well said stuff here. A second factor to remember about polling is that congressional Republicans did well in 2016. They outperformed Trump, they won the national popular vote. And polling back then expected them to.
Right now, generic congressional polling shows Republicans losing by just about the same margin as Trump (if not worse). What we have here, imo, is a second set of data that bodes very, very badly for Trump and his allies in congress. We know that this congressional polling did well in 2018 (it also did well in 2010 when Republicans won in a wave election too, fwiw).
As you also point out, Biden is up -- outside the margin of error -- even in states like Florida, where Hillary Clinton was never favored to win. It's a constellation of robust evidence imo. And bringing up 2016 to try and deny this is to ignore basic arithmetic (8 > 3).
This is what everyone knew was going to happen the moment charges were laid.
No one should be surprised. It's what America does because of Trump's actions is they key question.
America seriously needs to rip up its constitution and rewrite it. This presidency is bound to repeat if they don't.
I agree with not taking anything for granted and future events can certainly change the current picture. However, I'm not sure that's the message from this article. In the article immediately after the above quote, Slotkin was asked whether she was referring to the polls being subject to future change or being wrong now - and she is clear she means they're wrong now. She may well be sincere, but downplaying your support is an ancient political tactic to try and ensure people who support you actually come out and vote ...
I think it is this. Polling is a science, and has been relatively accurate in a macro sense for a while now. 2016 was decent, and 2018 was above average in accuracy. There's no reason to believe that 2020 will suddenly be massively different.
The volatility in the race is now from the polls being wrong, but from the fact that we are several months out and a lot can happen. It'll take a LOT for Trump to recover, but it's always a possibility.
Screw Trump and the Republicans enabling him.
Even though I'm extremely confident on the presidential race, I have no problem with Democrats publicly downplaying their position. As you say, it's good politics. But it's also critical for the race that is still competitive -- control of the Senate.
And I say this to anybody out there who is stridently progressive, liberal, left or whatever you want to call yourself. If you want a Biden administration that's more progressive, the best way to do that is hope and perhaps even do what you can so that Democrats win the Senate.
I'm still wrestling with the correct response to the undeniable fact that the gatekeepers of american power no longer want this to be a free society, and it isn't anymore. The swift creation of a climate of fear and punishment for tertiary offenses to arcane doctrine in order to induce paranoid conformity for anyone not an elite has been completed virtually unchecked, under the watch of perhaps the most ineffectual, useless President of all time. To say nothing of the use of police and the threat of prosecution to intimidate political enemies even where no real offense has occurred, a hallmark of corrupt politics. The inevitable Biden victory will only strengthen and solidify it. At the very least, i'm glad I took a path that makes me more or less unable to be intimidated by social and economic pressure. They can't property away from me for counter-revolutionary activity, at least not yet. I certainly support anything that leads to a loss of global power and influence for the west, generally. At this stage I don't believe at all that it is redeemable, so almost anyone else holding the global reigns would be a better alternative, and at this point, would probably do a much better job.
The similarities become more and more striking the more I think about it and i'm surprised I didn't draw these conclusions before. Clearly, one side or both is taking notes.
Although the US may be more polarized now than it's been in the past, there's still the opportunity to choose your allegiances and say pretty much what you like. I agree there are concerns about the current direction of things like freedom of speech and ability to vote, but I still don't see much resemblance between the situation in the US and a one-party state where protests about the power of the state will see you thrown into jail (and even this type of discussion on a public forum would be impossible).
I therefore don't agree with the overall conclusion you draw about the similarities between China and the US. The democracy in the US is self-balancing in theory - if one side strays too far from what people want, they will lose power. There have been plenty of concerns about Trump's presidency over things like corruption, health and international policies, but the most dangerous aspect has been the anti-democratic tendencies shown. However, while taken sufficiently far those have the potential to prevent the will of the people from operating, I don't think things have gone that far at the moment.
China is a very different situation. There's been an implicit contract there for more than a generation that citizens should give social and political control to the state in return for increased economic freedom and prosperity. That has worked well for the country for quite a few years, but I think it is a fundamentally unstable arrangement as it doesn't have a self-correcting mechanism. Economic freedoms can't be entirely divorced from social and political ones and China now seems to me to be about at the limits of what it can do there - meaning there's a high likelihood of the regime becoming more repressive, both internally and externally, over the next few years.
There's also likely to be a major problem of succession in China at some stage. Since Mao the Chinese have tried to avoid too much power being centered in a single individual, but that's changed in recent years. At the point that Xi Jinping dies or loses the ability to control others there could easily be a chaotic power struggle. That sort of thing has been hinted at with Trump, but the temporary nature of the US presidency means a president's control over others is pretty weak (as evidenced for instance in the current regime by the very high turnover of staff, Trump's inability to get states to do what he wants and the extent to which subordinates have refused to obey his orders). While some protests (including violent ones) from fanatics are quite possible, I don't currently expect major disruption if there is a change of government in January.
If Trump's culture war strategy was working even a little, it would be showing in the numbers by now. As of this morning RCP (which honestly leans right in their aggregate by about a 1.5% compared to 538, so it's useful if you want to give yourself a buffer-zone) has Biden CLIMBING to a 9% average nationally. Point being, anyone with any sense would pivot off statues and the non-stop bitching about how everyone is mean to him pronto. What is Trump focused on this morning?? Defending how much he golfs and promising no one will tear down the Washington Monument. Guy truly has his pulse on the concerns of the nation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53358330?SThisFB
I mean, it is unfortunate, but the question of jurisdiction was not able to be separated from the case. One can just as easily draw the conclusion that the woman who was raped is another victim of the US and State government refusing to abide by treaties that really have no room for interpretation. If "we" (as a country) can just keep changing the terms of the agreements on a whim, then they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Gorsuch actually has a pretty long track record on Native American land rights, so it isn't surprising he would go this way. He just doesn't believe doing anything but reading statutes and agreements in the most basic and clear-cut way. At the very least, he is an ACTUAL follower of this belief, and doesn't just pretend to be like Alito and Thomas.
I found this...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/506972-biden-leads-trump-5-points-in-texas-poll?amp
It's a pretty large sample, at over 1500 voters surveyed. The pollster involved (University of Texas, Tyler) doesn't have a long track record to analyze, but what they do have doesn't suggest any substantial bias in their results.
And, of course, this is in an environment in which Biden has about a ten-point lead in national polling. Texas might well vote for a Democrat in this year's presidential election, but that's because the overall results are swinging so far. Texas as a whole is still well right of the national average and the "tipping point" that decides the election.
I still don't think Biden will win Texas. The fact that it's competitive is simply a terrible sign for Trump. If he is only barely hanging on in the Lone Star State, I don't see how in the world he is supposed to maintain his slim 2016 margins in the Rust Belt.
And I'm telling you, senior citizens, no matter how conservative, aren't enthusiastic about Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis purposefully turning their states into death traps (for them) to appease Trump (and EVERYONE knows this happened). People will forgive Governors making errors. They aren't going to forgive the willful ignorance and stupidity these two engaged in for the sole purpose of trying to boost Trump's reelection bid. Of course, ironically, they may have doomed it.
Trump is banking on a miracle cure at this point. That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Barring that, he's going down in flames...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/07/12/what-donald-trump-could-learn-from-poker-351055