Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 181: We Are Seeking (An) Asylum

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Kenri posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

Pence is at least slightly better than the fucking trainwreck that is Trump.

Hard disagree, even now.

I have no doubt things would be more stable (at least in the US) with Pence as president but I think generally he'd accomplish more and that ideologically he's at least as bad if not worse.

I dont think hed accomplish more really. Trump is managing to accomplish a lot as it is.

I was on board with Trump > Pence for awhile. but Trump keeps doing legit scary things. Pence probably does have even worse opinions than Trump on many issues, but hes business as usual. The devil we know.

Yeah Pence is just gonna be W lite.

At this point id take it
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Kenri posted...

Nah but he'd have different human rights abuses to account for (not to mention that, as he's clearly demonstrated lately, he wouldn't oppose children being put into camps).

He's only silent because Trump has proven time and again he DEMANDS loyalty from his subordinates, and Pence is the kind of party man to the shut up and color.

Pence is the one person in the administration who Trump cannot fire. That's because, legally, he was elected by the Electoral College. He might still submit to Trump's demands, but Trump can't get rid of him like he can the rest.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Pence is the one person in the administration who Trump cannot fire. That's because, legally, he was elected by the Electoral College. He might still submit to Trump's demands, but Trump can't get rid of him like he can the rest.

In 2020, Trump could 100% replace Pence on the ballot if he wanted to.
---

Pence can't go against Trump for the same reason no Republican can - the Republican Party is the Trump Party.
---

So 12 GOP Senators sent a letter to Sessions asking him to stop the separation policy "until Congress works out a solution."

If those 12 (or even 11 since one of them is McCain) joined the Dem caucus (49) on Feinstein's bill to end it they'd have 60 right there.

but sure send a letter instead

Like I said before, it's going to be infuriating when they try and use this as a political hostage to pass additional things.
---

xp1337 posted...

So 12 GOP Senators sent a letter to Sessions asking him to stop the separation policy "until Congress works out a solution."

If those 12 (or even 11 since one of them is McCain) joined the Dem caucus (49) on Feinstein's bill to end it they'd have 60 right there.

but sure send a letter instead

Like I said before, it's going to be infuriating when they try and use this as a political hostage to pass additional things.

They would have to get the bill on calendar for a vote on the floor I think, since they are going against the majority leader. Which they could do, but it might require the nuclear option? I know the House lets a majority bring up a bill against the Speaker's wishes, but not sure what the Senate procedure is.
---

But yeah, realistically, Republicans are doing what they always do - extracting their pound of flesh. They just don't do things without getting some advantage for it.
---

For me, putting children in cages as hostages is going too far. If the GOP offers to stop it in return for a 1% cut to the marginal tax rate, Democrats might possibly do it. But if they do it, the GOP will be even more brazen next time, knowing that all they need to get what they want is hostages. This may result in the end of the Democratic Party, but on the balance it would be bad for the country.
---

I mean, this basically what they're doing already with their competing bills rather than just joining Feinstein's. I actually think Cruz proposed the best of the Republican options which is not a sentence I would ever think I'd be typing.
---

xp1337 posted...

So 12 GOP Senators sent a letter to Sessions asking him to stop the separation policy "until Congress works out a solution."

If those 12 (or even 11 since one of them is McCain) joined the Dem caucus (49) on Feinstein's bill to end it they'd have 60 right there.

but sure send a letter instead

Like I said before, it's going to be infuriating when they try and use this as a political hostage to pass additional things.

They are already using the children as hostages. I forget who in the administration said it, but basically they didn't want any bills unless there was also wall funding.
---

That the Republicans have done nothing to stop children from being put in cages just goes to show what kind of people they are. And anyone who supports them are just the same.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

They are already using the children as hostages. I forget who in the administration said it, but basically they didn't want any bills unless there was also wall funding.

I know, but I mean when they're actually voting on these bills.

Also, the administration can say whatever it wants, dare them to veto. Spoilers: they won't
---

Canada legalizes recreational marijuana use. https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1009219346592354304

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44543286
---

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/ivanka-trump-separations-immigration/index.html

"He mentioned that his daughter Ivanka had encouraged him to end this, and he said he does recognize that it needs to end and the images are painful and he's looking for a legislative solution," Curbelo said. "He discussed the optics and the policy itself, and I think he's not comfortable with either."

Oh wow, maybe he finally gets i

But asked if the President acknowledged he could change the policy or said he would, Curbelo said "no."

oh
---

Jakyl25 posted...

oh

Admitting that would be admitting that it's his fault. That's the one thing he won't do. It's why he keeps insisting Congress has to fix it, it lets him maintain the lie that he was an unwilling participant in this and even try to act like the hero for signing the end of it into law.

That's why I'd expect him/Sessions to ignore that GOP letter. The one thing they can't do is stop it themselves because it eliminates their ability to deny responsibility.
---

The Congressional GOPhave decided that Congress is not a coequal branch of government; rather, its subservient to the executive. Thats why you have Paul Ryan refusing to put forward bills that have majorities saying that they need to pass only a bill that the president will sign

Similarly, all of the supposed champions of free trade in the Senate wouldnt allow a vote on the Corker amendment to restore congressional oversight of tariffs.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The Congressional GOPhave decided that Congress is not a coequal branch of government; rather, its subservient to the executive. Thats why you have Paul Ryan refusing to put forward bills that have majorities saying that they need to pass only a bill that the president will sign

That's more Ryan trying to keep the Republican party from having a civil war IMO. Unless you have an example that doesn't involve some combination of passing a bill with Democratic help over the objections of (almost always) the HFC?

I mean, you're right that Congress has decided its not coequal in that it has constantly relinquished various powers to the Executive in order to keep from having to make unpopular votes.
---

The tariff thing I edited in might be a better example (I can guarantee a veto-proof majority of both chambers dislike Trumps trade wars)
---

https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1009229501488775169?s=19

DHS Secretary Nielsen just got driven out of a Mexican restaurant here on 14th Street by activists. DSA, I believe. https://t.co/lTKutryXBO

Should have surrounded her table in barbed wire.
---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, this basically what they're doing already with their competing bills rather than just joining Feinstein's. I actually think Cruz proposed the best of the Republican options which is not a sentence I would ever think I'd be typing.

We can call it the Cruz-Feinstein Bill to Stop Being Shitheads as long as this gets done IMO
---

Well, yeah, of course. If Cruz or whoever wanted to copy/paste Feinstein's bill and rename it after themselves - fine.

I've seen some concerns about Cruz's bill but it seems like the best option that has a chance to pass.
---

Zero Orange Dictators Issue Any Cages act
---

I wonder what would happen if they tucked in a provision that fire Robert Mueller.
---

I dont think Congress can do that
---

red sox 777 posted...

I wonder what would happen if they tucked in a provision that fire Robert Mueller.

this is why a lot of this topic calls you a troll/is annoyed at you

if this is what passes for a thought to provoke "interesting" discussion: no

Mueller reports to DoJ i.e. the Executive Branch. Not even sure they can fire him.
---

I wonder what would happen if they tucked in a provision that gave Trump the Megazord
---

They could repeal the special counsel law then, to fire him indirectly.
---

red sox 777 posted...

They could repeal the special counsel law then, to fire him indirectly.

The provisions relating to Special Counsels implemented post-Watergate has been expired since 1999.

try again
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I wonder what would happen if they tucked in a provision that gave Trump the Megazord

I could see Bill and Hillary as Lord Zedd and Rita Repulsa
---

Make my emails grooooow!
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

They could repeal the special counsel law then, to fire him indirectly.

The provisions relating to Special Counsels implemented post-Watergate has been expired since 1999.

try again

I thought that was the independent counsel law? There's obvious some legal authority for the special counsel, and it's not directly from the Constitution as there's no mention of any special counsel in there.
---

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

They could repeal the special counsel law then, to fire him indirectly.

The provisions relating to Special Counsels implemented post-Watergate has been expired since 1999.

try again

I thought that was the independent counsel law? There's obvious some legal authority for the special counsel, and it's not directly from the Constitution as there's no mention of any special counsel in there.

If you're not referring to the independent counsel provisions (itself part of a larger law) then I don't know what you're referring to. Not that said provisions are even germane to this situation

There's no federal law governing special counsels to my knowledge.
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

They could repeal the special counsel law then, to fire him indirectly.

The provisions relating to Special Counsels implemented post-Watergate has been expired since 1999.

try again

I thought that was the independent counsel law? There's obvious some legal authority for the special counsel, and it's not directly from the Constitution as there's no mention of any special counsel in there.

If you're not referring to the independent counsel provisions (itself part of a larger law) then I don't know what you're referring to. Not that said provisions are even germane to this situation

There's no federal law governing special counsels to my knowledge.

There has to be, or else Mueller would have no legal authority to do anything. Ah, found it:

28 CFR 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

---

red sox, just a bit of advice

Stuff like this isn't "interesting discussion"
---

red sox 777 posted...

There has to be, or else Mueller would have no legal authority to do anything. Ah, found it:

The AG has inherent authority to appoint a special counsel and the existence of that law does not preclude that.

See: Fitzgerald in 2003 who was specifically appointed not under 28 CFR 600. (There's probably a less awkward way to phrase that but you get it, right?)

Edit: those are also DOJ regulations not statutory
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

There has to be, or else Mueller would have no legal authority to do anything. Ah, found it:

The AG has inherent authority to appoint a special counsel and the existence of that law does not preclude that.

See: Fitzgerald in 2003 who was specifically appointed not under 28 CFR 600. (There's probably a less awkward way to phrase that but you get it, right?)

Edit: those are also DOJ regulations not statutory

Any inherent authority the AG has comes from the President. So even if the president's law enforcement authority is the source of Mueller's authority, and Congress can't fire him, they can pass legislation regulating it and/or giving Trump cover to fire him.
---

Also, federal regulations are authorized by statute - Congress assigns the power to make regulations to the executive branch.

Edit: Also, Wikipedia says Fitzgerald was appointed under 28 CFR 600. Is there reason I shouldn't believe this?
---

red sox 777 posted...

they can pass legislation regulating it

Depending on how it might be unconstitutional.

red sox 777 posted...

or giving Trump cover to fire him.

What? The lies aren't enough?

again what "interesting discussion" did you think would spring by that kind of drive-by post?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Edit: Also, Wikipedia says Fitzgerald was appointed under 28 CFR 600. Is there reason I shouldn't believe this?

Wikipedia also says it wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Legal_authority

skip down to the last paragraph

Edit: If you follow the citation it goes to Comey (it's all connected!!)'s letter as acting AG and he does not cite 28 CFR 600 in it while citing other sections.
---

Might be unconstitutional, but you can't argue that such a statute would be unconstitutional without admitting that Trump has the absolute right and power to fire Mueller. So it may not really matter.

And not all of my posts are going to be terribly deep. Am I, alone, required to make exclusively deep posts?
---

red sox 777 posted...

but you can't argue that such a statute would be unconstitutional without admitting that Trump has the absolute right and power to fire Mueller.

He does.

Everyone (should) know that. I think that's a huge flaw in the system but it is what it is.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And not all of my posts are going to be terribly deep. Am I, alone, required to make exclusively deep posts?

Sorry, meant to put this in the last post but I'm dumb.

No, but that was a total drive-by. It wasn't relevant to the topic at all, it was just shoe-horning in something crazy that you have to know would grate with most of the topic!
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Edit: Also, Wikipedia says Fitzgerald was appointed under 28 CFR 600. Is there reason I shouldn't believe this?

Wikipedia also says it wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Legal_authority

skip down to the last paragraph

Edit: If you follow the citation it goes to Comey (it's all connected!!)'s letter as acting AG and he does not cite 28 CFR 600 in it while citing other sections.

Okay, it seems Wikipedia is not always reliable, since different pages contradict each other, but I believe yours is right, as they linked to the letters authorizing Fitzgerald's appointment. This is, however, moot, because Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller specifically references 28 CFR 600:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And not all of my posts are going to be terribly deep. Am I, alone, required to make exclusively deep posts?

Sorry, meant to put this in the last post but I'm dumb.

No, but that was a total drive-by. It wasn't relevant to the topic at all, it was just shoe-horning in something crazy that you have to know would grate with most of the topic!

Is it more crazy than Republicans demanding that Obamacare be repealed in order for them to not shut down the government? Or Republicans sending Senator Enzi to give a one-hour rambling speech, mostly about his family and personal life, in support for their healthcare bill, while refusing to allow any questions, before voting on it about an hour after the text was released?
---

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And not all of my posts are going to be terribly deep. Am I, alone, required to make exclusively deep posts?

Sorry, meant to put this in the last post but I'm dumb.

No, but that was a total drive-by. It wasn't relevant to the topic at all, it was just shoe-horning in something crazy that you have to know would grate with most of the topic!

Is it more crazy than Republicans demanding that Obamacare be repealed in order for them to not shut down the government? Or Republicans sending Senator Enzi to give a one-hour rambling speech, mostly about his family and personal life, in support for their healthcare bill, while refusing to allow any questions, before voting on it about an hour after the text was released?

Yes, actually.

Honestly, I feel like I'd be justified in leaving my response at that, but if you insist - In your case, the issues would be entirely unrelated and would be bringing in yet another unpopular position into the mix (while distressingly support for the Mueller Investigation has declined over time a majority of Americans still support it.) And there's just no way to gaslight that the two are connected. At least with the ACA and a government shutdown you could try, "The ACA is bankrupting the country!!!!"

and while the latter was downright insane it was, at least, a standalone issue: ACA repeal.
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And not all of my posts are going to be terribly deep. Am I, alone, required to make exclusively deep posts?

Sorry, meant to put this in the last post but I'm dumb.

No, but that was a total drive-by. It wasn't relevant to the topic at all, it was just shoe-horning in something crazy that you have to know would grate with most of the topic!

Is it more crazy than Republicans demanding that Obamacare be repealed in order for them to not shut down the government? Or Republicans sending Senator Enzi to give a one-hour rambling speech, mostly about his family and personal life, in support for their healthcare bill, while refusing to allow any questions, before voting on it about an hour after the text was released?

Yes, actually.

Honestly, I feel like I'd be justified in leaving my response at that, but if you insist - In your case, the issues would be entirely unrelated and would be bringing in yet another unpopular position into the mix (while distressingly support for the Mueller Investigation has declined over time a majority of Americans still support it.) And there's just no way to gaslight that the two are connected. At least with the ACA and a government shutdown you could try, "The ACA is bankrupting the country!!!!"

and while the latter was downright insane it was, at least, a standalone issue: ACA repeal.

You know perfectly well there was no real connection between Obamacare repeal and the government shutdown. And so did the Republicans, and pretty much all of their voters. That excuse is only slightly better than Trump's excuse that the law forces him to separate children from their parents. And this is 5 years later, so Republicans are more brazen and open about their negotiating strategy now. They haven't proposed firing Mueller in exchange for releasing the children yet, but would it really surprise you if they did? How about after 2 more years of pushing the envelope?
---

red sox 777 posted...

but would it really surprise you if they did?

It is not entirely inconceivable some fringe house member might speak the idea out loud. I wouldn't expect it, but it's somewhere on the edge of possibility.

McConnell or Ryan? Yes.

red sox 777 posted...

How about after 2 more years of pushing the envelope?

gonna be hard to do without the house
---

Honestly, I find the attitude of a lot of Democrats to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge what Republicans are doing to be quite distressing. They continue to beg Republican Congressmen for help and make appeals to their better natures, over and over and over, even though this never ever works. In between crises, they make zero effort to reach out to voters who might vote for them if Democrats actually tried to win their votes instead of writing them off as deplorable. Then, come the next crisis engineered by Republicans, it's more burying their heads in the sand and screaming loudly about how horrible things are.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Honestly, I find the attitude of a lot of Democrats to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge what Republicans are doing to be quite distressing.

Pretty sure Democrats acknowledge it.

CHIP, DACA, now this.
---

They continue to beg Republican Congressmen for help and make appeals to their better natures, over and over and over, even though this never ever works. In between crises, they make zero effort to reach out to voters who might vote for them if Democrats actually tried to win their votes instead of writing them off as deplorable.

So, you think that Democrats have too high an opinion of Republican congressmen, too low an opinion of Republican voters?
---