Oh goody, more of Wohl's Erotic Enemy Fiction.
Tina Belcher is somewhere shaking her head in shame that this dude's trying to pinch her style and doing it so poorly.
I mean Kamala's been really bad on the stump, has made a ton of self-inflicted wounds, and has been unable to take advantage of any of her boosts of momentum. Beto has also tried to do the same, but it's not a REASON for running for president, and he already showed his hand with "I was born to be in it, man." Neither of them have a coherent reason for running, which is partly why they're doing so poorly.O'Rourke is trying to make himself the gun control candidate. Which is both too late and also like there's not a huge amount of air between him and others.
He never had a clear message to his candidacy.
Most of the flops are because there isn't a clear brand or message.
"I'm a prosecutor" who cares why do you keep repeating this. Why are you running for President?
Something interesting in the NBC poll is that Trumps job approval is 43/53 but his fsvorability is 38/53. So there's a not small segment of people who dislike him but like the job he's doing. So I assume those are dumbasses who think the economy being good is his doing so hopefully when the economy shits itself next summer he losses those people.
I'm not and he is.Call me naive but I am pretty surprised the WH counsel signed his name to that screed. It's been a year or so since I read Woodward and Bernstein's Final Days, but my recollection was the WH counsel there wasn't that bold. Plus, given the leaks about McGahn during the early years, I'm not even convinced he'd be on board about this.
Gonna have to google Cipallone (sic) just to see if he really is this much of a nutter.
I swear, it's small fucking world day. Pat Cipollone, lead counsel for the WH. I wonder where he went to high school?
Covington Catholic in KY? Gee, that sounds familiar, smh.
After meeting with Mick Mulvaney at the White House today, former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy has accepted an offer to serve as outside counsel to President Trump, sources tell @PamelaBrownCNN and me.
I know it's almost passe to say at this point but...
... call your congressman and senators, especially if you have a Republican one representing your state.
It's quick, it's easy, and the message can be very simple. "I'm calling to let you know I cannot support President Trump's blatant obstruction and violation of his oath of office. Thank you and have a good day."
Will they buckle? *shrug* But every voice counts.
"What we have now is an administrative nightmare," said U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, who is overseeing a challenge to the law by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, during a Tuesday hearing in Tallahassee.
The ACLU asked Hinkle to temporarily stop the law, which requires felons to pay back all court fees, fines and restitution to victims before being allowed to vote. Hinkle is expected to rule on it in the coming weeks.
But Hinkle made clear that the Legislature's law, which critics have called a "poll tax," raises constitutional questions that attorneys for Gov. Ron DeSantis, Secretary of State Laurel Lee and county elections supervisors were unable to answer after two days of arguments.
It's become an administrative nightmare, he said, because of problems created by lawmakers. Even so, he said it was the Legislature that was best suited to fix the law, which he said was preferable to judges like himself trying to fix it.
The only part of this I disagree with of that Harris had been really good on the stump. It's why she's remained in the top 5 this entire primary, and why she had the largest Dem campaign event until Warren's NY Ralley.I mean Kamala's been really bad on the stump, has made a ton of self-inflicted wounds, and has been unable to take advantage of any of her boosts of momentum. Beto has also tried to do the same, but it's not a REASON for running for president, and he already showed his hand with "I was born to be in it, man." Neither of them have a coherent reason for running, which is partly why they're doing so poorly.
This was Hillary's issue too, but she has enough residual goodwill and a weak (at first) opponent. Biden is facing the same issues (why are you running?) but has to face more competent candidates than Hillary.
This is actually a good takeThe intellectual heavyweight in the race is leading. Which is the only commonality in the last 6 (?) Dem primaries.
This is incredibly disingenuous. Lots of people here have been supportive of Harris including her attack on Biden at the first debate. The sad thing is that she failed to capitalize on that moment afterwards and squandered her post-debate bump. She has been seemingly unprepared for some questions to her record, and has waffled on direct questioning of her platform. She may be "your girl" as you say, but flailing around accusations when she's near the bottom of the cutoffs now isn't helpful to anything, including her.So, you're for a black woman running, just not this black woman?
Gotcha.
Trump ads have been spamming cnn with 'Trump is TOUGH, he is fighting for you!~!!!!!'
She's bad on the stump and you sort of just said why. Her initial launch was huge, and that goes with the huge expectations we all had for her. She was never was able to match her initial launch because she was never able to organically build on that movement.The only part of this I disagree with of that Harris had been really good on the stump. It's why she's remained in the top 5 this entire primary, and why she had the largest Dem campaign event until Warren's NY Ralley.
Her problem is not knowing how to build on momentum
Show me the top candidate who hasn't "flopped" on an issue. You don't demonstrate that in this post.This is incredibly disingenuous. Lots of people here have been supportive of Harris including her attack on Biden at the first debate. The sad thing is that she failed to capitalize on that moment afterwards and squandered her post-debate bump. She has been seemingly unprepared for some questions to her record, and has waffled on direct questioning of her platform. She may be "your girl" as you say, but flailing around accusations when she's near the bottom of the cutoffs now isn't helpful to anything, including her.
So, he's going to continue to run for president by running for president less. Come on Bernie. Do not literally die on the trail.
I don't disagree with this. I just don't see it as the crutch of her campaign..I mean, regarded the "retarded" issue, she didn't even say.those words herself. Society as a whole hasn't caught up. She's being hung for not disagreeing fast enough.She's bad on the stump and you sort of just said why. Her initial launch was huge, and that goes with the huge expectations we all had for her. She was never was able to match her initial launch because she was never able to organically build on that movement.
And then she does stuff like the "mentally retarded" stuff, and it all kind of builds into someone who just doesn't feel comfortable with their place in the race because they don't have a coherent thesis for running. That's ultimately her biggest issue, and it's also the biggest issue for a lot of also-rans.
Show me were I used the word "flopped" or implied it was on a single issue in that post?Show me the top candidate who hasn't "flopped" on an issue. You don't demonstrate that in this post.
President Donald Trump directed Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and two top State Department officials to deal with his private attorney Rudy Giuliani when the Ukrainian President sought to meet Trump, in a clear circumvention of official channels, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.
Trump believed Ukraine was still rampantly corrupt and said that if President Volodymyr Zelensky wanted to meet with him, Giuliani would have to be convinced first, one source said.
"If they can satisfy Rudy, they can satisfy the President," a person familiar with the meeting said.
Yeah that's the thing. I think a lot of people expressing disappointment in Harris had her as their #1 not too long ago. I know that's the case for me.Demonstrate to me that I have to negatively highlight every other top candidate in order to build a case for or support someone I was one really excited for and was hoping to drive and volunteer at her campaign headquarters this winter when she announced early this year that she was running.
Those couple of weeks when she really leaned into this talmbout Trump having a "rap sheet" and "prosecuting the case"... muffy sis..."I'm a prosecutor" who cares why do you keep repeating this. Why are you running for President?
Show me were I used the word "flopped" or implied it was on a single issue in that post?
Demonstrate to me that I have to negatively highlight every other top candidate in order to build a case for or support someone I was one really excited for and was hoping to drive and volunteer at her campaign headquarters this winter when she announced early this year that she was running.
Agreed.Kamala would have been an awesome candidate with a better campaign team. Her team did her a disservice. Your team is meant to make sure it's clear who you are as a candidate.
What im curious about....is the conflicting reports of US troops being there. My understanding is Turkey announced an invasion, and then trump pulled out. That would imply Turkey was ready to fight US troops, which hasnt really been a talking point right now. So if there are still US troops there, would they be fighting Russians?
AgreedAgreed.
I think next round, if she has a good team, she'll be tough to beat. IF she has a good team.
How do you enforce inherent contempt, though? Does it take the FBI to seize the funds? The IRS? Anything where Trump could get in between the declaration of inherent contempt and the execution of it?
But identifying the legal authorities for Congress's power to directly fine federal officials is only the first part of the question. Congress must also resolve how such fines will be imposed. There are at least three potential options. First is to borrow the procedures from the closest analogy: Congress's past experience with fining its own members. Congress has previously fined its own in response to ethics investigations. In some cases, Congress has issued a formal finding ordering the member to write a check to the Treasury Department to pay for the fines; in other cases, the committees have asked the sergeant-at-arms to deduct from the member's salary. In instances where Congress has deducted from a salary, instead of asking the member to write a check directly to the Treasury, it has relied on the authority of the sergeant-at-arms to certify the salary of each member before it is transmitted to the Treasury Department for payment.
Because the sergeant-at-arms does not have the same power over other executive officials' salaries, Congress would need to seek another avenue to communicate its message to the Treasury Department if it were to use fines to enforce inherent contempt. The sergeant-at-arms might derive the power to request such salary deduction from the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA), which was enacted in 1996 and established an administrative process for garnishing the salaries of federal officials found to be indebted to the U.S. government and delinquent on their debt. The act requires the agencies to notify the Department of Treasury's Financial Management Services (FMS) when they become aware that a federal employee is delinquent on a nontax debt. The DCIA also defines nontax debt to include "[a]ny fines or penalties assessed by an agency," and its definition of agency includes all executive, judicial and legislative departments or agencies. A fine assessed by Congress should therefore fall under this act.
The main body in charge of enforcing this provision, since its adoption, has been the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO is among the more esoteric government offices in Washington, D.C. The agency exerts a tremendous amount of power and influence over distribution of the federal budget, second, perhaps, to the Treasury Department. It owes some of this unique influence to its status as a legislative agency. Given the agency's close ties to Congress, relying on GAO's discretion removes the perennial problem of dealing with executive departments that are often unaccommodating in enforcing contempt power.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Congress has previously triggered the process of GAO's reviews of violations under the act by merely sending a request letter to GAO, as opposed to taking a full vote in the House. GAO's exercise of this power has been met with executive pushback in the past, particularly the claim that enforcement of the act violated the executive privilege. GAO has addressed such concerns before, asserting that "absent an opinion from a federal court concluding that [the provision] is unconstitutional," the agency will continue to enforce it. GAO continues to make its own determinations of the balance between the executive privilege interest and Congress's need for information.
Can't trump just pardon whomever is busted for inherent contempt?
Arguably, an inherent contempt proceeding takes place wholly outside the criminal code, is not subject to executive execution of the laws and prosecutorial discretion, and thus, appears completely beyond the reach of the executive branch. Furthermore, as previously indicated, inherent contempt, unlike criminal contempt, is not intended to punish, but rather to coerce compliance with a congressional directive.287
Thus, a finding of inherent contempt against an executive branch official does not appear to be subject to the President's Pardon power —as an inherent contempt arguably is not an "offense against the United States," but rather is an offense against a house of Congress. Likewise, it appears that the same arguments would be applicable to a potential civil enforcement by Congress.
NBCPolitics
BREAKING: Speaker Pelosi responds to Trump admin.'s refusal to cooperate with impeachment investigation:
"Mr. President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable." https://nbcnews.to/2VzTySZ
129
8:41 PM - Oct 8, 2019
As the thread has been saying, Kamala's team just isn't very good at PR, comms, coaching, and just plain getting her out there.I feel Kamala, either by virtue of her race or just the amazing job some of the white men have at capturing the media's eye, hasn't been able to really break through the noise as successfully as everyone else. I'm not saying she doesn't work hard but Liz went from folks proclaiming her campaign as DOA to seemingly placing at the front runner with real leg work and heavy messaging(she got plans yo).
I honestly would love to have Kamala as a front runnerbut Liz policy assault and ground game as well as her smart approaches to keeping in the conversation has had me bump her from my number 2 to the top spot.
Harris hired her sister as her campaign manager which... probably wasn't a good idea.Kamala would have been an awesome candidate with a better campaign team. Her team did her a disservice. Your team is meant to make sure it's clear who you are as a candidate.
But the other big issue is the one Pete is facing too: she has the wrong person in her lane. That would be Warren.
For Pete, it's Biden.
Please, let's be realistic. They won't address Trump's argument at all. They'll just say there hasn't been enough evidence to show Trump broke the law and then spew some whataboutism about Biden or Hillary and Jim Jordan will spew some party line rhetoric about how it was all made up anyway.So....in order for GOP Congress to go along with Trumps defense, they have to agree that they themselves have no power or oversight over the Executive branch.
When the Senate has to review and decide on the validity of the impeachment articles, they'll have to tacitly admit that despite Trump clearly obstructing THEIR OWN BRANCH of government, they either don't care, or agree with the President.
...let's see how that goes.