Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation

afrocentricity said:
Normally you'd hand them over stating you have nothing to hide, so I get why it looks suspect. I suspect they would be uncooperative regardless though, feeds into the general narrative...
Click to expand...

So they are basically telling that the committee doesn't have the authority to request the records unless they can give a valid legal reason for such request.

Can the committee subpoena for records?
 
Fully Fledged said:
Which will end up in the Supreme Court that is heavily stacked in Trump’s favour.
Click to expand...

It's not really stacked in his favour, let alone heavily. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, and hasn't so far produced anything as hardline as Scalia did (that I've seen anyway), and as for Kavanaugh we'll have to wait and see. The main thing though is that no matter who appoints the judges, they are generally extremely qualified professionals who will at least try to interpret the law correctly, even if their own interpretations of the constitution may differ. Thomas is a fecking joke, and has no business being there (and may very well be in Trump's pocket), but the others are generally pretty solid. Because they're appointed for life, it really doesn't matter who sent them there, and you quite often see judges change their attitudes over time on that bench.

For something like this, there's strong legal precedent after Nixon, and it would take an extreme interpretation of the constitution (and the overturning of precedent) to come to the conclusion that a president and his staff should be completely outside of congressional oversight. Maybe I'm out of touch and just plain wrong, but if it went to SCOTUS I'd be shocked if it wasn't a heavy defeat for Trump.
 
That's all well and nice in theory, but at the end of the day the justices very regularly vote for the "side" that put them on the court in the first place. It's more partisan than ever, and you'd have to be blind not to recognize that it's more heavily tilted to the right than it has been in many, many years.
 
niMic said:
That's all well and nice in theory, but at the end of the day the justices very regularly vote for the "side" that put them on the court in the first place. It's more partisan than ever, and you'd have to be blind not to recognize that it's more heavily tilted to the right than it has been in many, many years.
Click to expand...

Do you know how often the court breaks 5-4? 19%. It overwhelmingly delivers either unanimous or near unanimous verdicts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-0-is-far-more-common/?utm_term=.571abae381ef

Don't get me wrong, if this was a case about the balance of corporate power or money in elections, then I'd be worried, but it wouldn't be the kind of case that allowed much room for personal interpretation based on political beliefs.
 
niMic said:
That's all well and nice in theory, but at the end of the day the justices very regularly vote for the "side" that put them on the court in the first place. It's more partisan than ever, and you'd have to be blind not to recognize that it's more heavily tilted to the right than it has been in many, many years.
Click to expand...
It's a corporate court for sure but we still haven't seen where Gorsuch lands in social issues and I also think Trump is in for a sharp shock with him.
 
Kentonio said:
Do you know how often the court breaks 5-4? 19%. It overwhelmingly delivers either unanimous or near unanimous verdicts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-0-is-far-more-common/?utm_term=.571abae381ef

Don't get me wrong, if this was a case about the balance of corporate power or money in elections, then I'd be worried, but it wouldn't be the kind of case that allowed much room for personal interpretation based on political beliefs.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its similar to why the senate is going to vote against National emergency. They would be worried that such events would set a precedent for future presidents.
 
Isn't the president coercing some to commit perjury an impeachable offence?
 
Damien said:
Proposal, so good luck getting it past Mitch.
Click to expand...
The House measure aims to expand voting rights through provisions including creating automatic voter registration, increasing election security by pushing back on foreign threats and making Election Day a national holiday for federal workers.

Still, McConnell has repeatedly lashed out at the proposal and said Monday that it would “never become law.”

“I certainly don't plan to even bring it to the floor here in the Senate," McConnell said from the Senate floor.

Asked why he wasn’t giving it a vote, he quipped on Wednesday, "Because I get to decide what we vote on.”
Click to expand...
Going off that last line the Dems won’t get a vote on any of their proposals.
 
Judge Ellis giving his closing thoughts before the sentence, seems to be he'll go easy on Manafort. Characterizing him as a good guy who has "lived an otherwise blameless life" :lol:

Guessing the pardon comes out in short order as well

Edit: 47months sentence vs guidelines of 19-24yrs. Ridiculous
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.