Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nelson_Mandela 3 days ago#309
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents?amp

It has begun. President Trump is getting a second term.

Yes, and that swing will get bigger once President Trump is acquitted. I think Pelosi is smart enough to know that a trial will not go well for them and if left entirely to her own discretion would choose to keep the "investigation" going as long as possible so as to avoid bringing it to trial before the election. But a lot of Dems probably will not listen to her at this point and the train has already left the station.

While it's true that the Fifth Amendment rights to due process and no double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial may not legally apply to an impeachment, they absolutely will apply in the eyes of the public. The result of a trial will, then, be that in the eyes of the public, Trump will be completely exonerated of everything.

Congrats to President Trump for succeeding in being impeached, which is the only way to forever put these allegations to bed.
---

The main aggravation is that there are swaths of posts that are just nothing.
---

Sounds like Giulianis fucked:

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/1199060513528913922?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sounds like Giulianis fucked:

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/1199060513528913922?s=21

So Guiliani 100% has enough dirt on Trump to force a pardon, right.
---

So my problem with people against M4A with certain talking points is I don't think it broadly reaches the real point.

Here is the main point for me. Bernie's plan, once implemented, would roll out over four years. Now as of right now medicare is a wildly popular program with who it covers. However Bernie would like to cover vision and dental as well, which is nice. If you make less than 100,000 a year it is very, very likely you will be paying far less for your medical than you do just in your normal premiums, and on top of that you get dental as well. Past that I think a lot of people would still be paying drastically less for more coverage.

Why does the USA pay almost twice as much as any developed country for its healthcare and so many are in medical debt? Why are we the only country where people can go bankrupt for getting cancer? Why do tends of thousands of human beings die every year because they do not have the money to live? Has anyone thought that so many of the health problems that have seeped into American culture are due in part to people not having the money for preventative care and to be regularly checked up on? My fiance sometimes cringes thinking about doctor appointments when she is ill and she is a CPA with a masters in accounting with no student loans. Someone with that education and skill set who has insurance still cringes. I cannot imagine how it must feel to have that student loan debt. Or to not have a well paying job. Actually, I don't have to imagine, that was my mom and she died due to kidney disease because when I was a kid we had enough money to get by but never enough for her to always see the doctor as much as she needed.

It kind of hit me the other day why I fight so hard for this, and why Bernie Sanders means so much to me. I earnestly believe he will fight for people, and that he would have fought for my mom. I think if you put Trump and Bernie in a spotlight and Trump tries to call Socialism scary Bernie will shred him on live national television. Bernie's not a scary guy, he laughs and jokes and hangs out with pop stars and has a great sense of humor. Trying to turn him into a villain is going to backfire horribly.

A billionaire vs Bernie in 2020 is a match up that has been in the making for forty years. Bernie is good at attacking those.

I can't summon up the care for people hand wringing about their own insurance when the math is already out there, if you make less than 400,000 it is likely to be a good deal or you all things considered when thinking about Dental as well, and Medicare is a good program. The current system is a complete mess for so many people. It can't be ignored anymore.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

The greater argument is when you ban people from a containment topic they only have the option to break containment for said discussions. No one wants that.

red Sox already does tho
---

LordoftheMorons posted...
I think youre discounting the possibility that Mitch decides that its in the Senate GOPs best interest to push Trump off a cliff, though.

The issue with this is that the GOP is already all-in. If they abandoned Trump it wouldn't win them the 2020 election. They would have to admit they were wrong, and why should the voters vote for them in that case? The only way the GOP wins is if Trump wins. That is Trump's leverage and he's been very very good at making sure he always has that leverage.
---

https://i.redd.it/tqn00o9lhv041.png

I welcome their hatred tbh

---

Apparently Parnas has video and audio recordings he's turning over. If true, this will be a lot of fun.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

So Guiliani 100% has enough dirt on Trump to force a pardon, right.

Yeah Guiliani has already stated he has an "insurance policy" against Trump.

Though, given his general competence, it might not be a good one.

---

A judge has ruled that Don McGahn must comply with the House's subpoena:
https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1199106248693747714

---

Re: Bolivia coup

https://twitter.com/Dan_Beeton/status/1199080164895973376

Helps if I copy the correct tweet
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

A judge has ruled that Don McGahn must comply with the House's subpoena:

Good news of course, but until all avenues of appeal are exhausted (or less likely, DOJ gives up fighting it) I'm not exactly celebrating.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

A judge has ruled that Don McGahn must comply with the House's subpoena:
https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1199106248693747714

Or else what?
---

Yeah this isn't going anywhere until SCOTUS rules on it.
---

Incidentally, apparently it's also an unsettled question in the UK whether the Queen can be compelled to testify. King George V was advised (and accepted that advice, although no court ruled on it) that he could not give testimony in court, even if he wanted to.
---

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/11/25/president-trump-signs-bill-making-animal-cruelty-a-felony/

---

What was it before. A misdemeanor?

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yes, and that swing will get bigger once President Trump is acquitted. I think Pelosi is smart enough to know that a trial will not go well for them and if left entirely to her own discretion would choose to keep the "investigation" going as long as possible so as to avoid bringing it to trial before the election. But a lot of Dems probably will not listen to her at this point and the train has already left the station.

While it's true that the Fifth Amendment rights to due process and no double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial may not legally apply to an impeachment, they absolutely will apply in the eyes of the public. The result of a trial will, then, be that in the eyes of the public, Trump will be completely exonerated of everything.

Congrats to President Trump for succeeding in being impeached, which is the only way to forever put these allegations to bed.

Damn, I know that is one poll but that's a hell of a swing in polling in Wisconsin. See if it continues.

Impeachment proceedings made Clinton popular. Let's see if it does to Trump also. If it does for Trump too, I don't think we will ever see an impeachment process again tried by the opposition unless it is dire.

---

Maniac64 posted...

What was it before. A misdemeanor?

Was it even against the law federally?

---

It apparently wasn't. Just posting videos of it was.

---

Geez that's sad. Glad it is now.

---

Maniac64 posted...

What was it before. A misdemeanor?

There was no specific federal law against animal cruelty. There was one against animal fighting and another for making certain animal abuse videos but not cruelty in general. All the states have various ones but without a federal law it could be tricky if a case involved multiple jurisdictions or took place in certain places governed by federal law like airports.

Anyway, it's a good first step and it's good it's being signed into law but it still leaves open some pretty big exception cases. It may not cover anything that is less than "serious bodily harm [to the animal]" and leaves exceptions to "agricultural husbandry" which means, for instance, puppy mills would still be allowed because previous court decisions have determined dogs are livestock in that case not pets and there was even a case where the defendant successfully got torture of dogs down to a misdemanor by arguing they were legally considered livestock.
---

Damn, I figured this wouldnt stop puppy mills but I had hoped to be wrong.

---

Probably it wasn't a law federally, because it's extremely questionable that Congress has the constitutional power to pass this law. They tried to shoehorn it under the Commerce Clause:

It shall be unlawful for any person to purposely engage in animal crushing in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Well, when does animal cruelty affect interstate commerce? If there is some kind of cruelty ring, sure, but for people abusing their own animals? Of course Democrats usually understand "affecting interstate commerce" to mean "anything that exists or doesn't exist" and for 60 years the Supreme Court went along with it but in the last 25 they have put in some limits on the idea of affecting interstate commerce.

Stuff that was held not to affect interstate commerce:

1. Guns in schools.
2. Domestic violence.
3. Not buying health insurance.

So someone will probably challenge this, and probably win if SCOTUS is going to be consistent.
---

It probably wasn't a federal law before in part because the former House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) kept killing it even as the Senate passed it by unanimous consent and had nearly 300 House co-sponsors in the 2017-2018 Republican House.
---

xp1337 posted...

It probably wasn't a federal law before in part because the former House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) kept killing it even as the Senate passed it by unanimous consent and had nearly 300 House co-sponsors in the 2017-2018 Republican House.

He probably didn't want to pass an unconstitutional law. A judiciary chair who knew his constitution.
---

And the solution of course is for states to have their own laws banning this. And have a federal law covering places where the federal government does have jurisdiction (i.e. the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States").
---

All states do have laws banning it! This law was passed to the fill the gap for when the cases did cross jurisdictions and for areas like military bases where federal government had jurisdiction.

ffs rtfm
---

I just read something interesting.

If the 2020 election is 269-269 and the house voted for the president, even with the current democratic majority that Trump would likely still take the presidency because it goes by house state delegations and not representatives, which Republicans control 26-22 (2 tied) as of now.

Interesting.


---

Yes, I'm 99% sure we've discussed this scenario before.

It is possible, but rather unlikely, state delegations could be flipped in 2020 to avert that but in that scenario it probably isn't a 269-269 tie soooo...
---

xp1337 posted...

Yes, I'm 99% sure we've discussed this scenario before.

It is possible, but rather unlikely, state delegations could be flipped in 2020 to avert that but in that scenario it probably isn't a 269-269 tie soooo...

The article I read said that 26 of the delegations are likely safe for Republicans and at best Democrats could likely pick up 2 to get to 24.

---

hence my saying it is rather unlikely

And that if it did happen the EC almost certainly isn't a tie but a blowout win for the Democrats.
---

Just imagine the Democrat wins 270 to 268 and one D elector refuses to vote for the Democrat and votes for Bernie instead. Then the House votes by states and elects Trump. Beautiful.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Just imagine the Democrat wins 270 to 268 and one D elector refuses to vote for the Democrat and votes for Bernie instead. Then the House votes by states and elects Trump. Beautiful.

That would be 269 to 268 to 1

Pretty sure that's not a tie.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Just imagine the Democrat wins 270 to 268 and one D elector refuses to vote for the Democrat and votes for Bernie instead. Then the House votes by states and elects Trump. Beautiful.

That would be 269 to 268 to 1

Pretty sure that's not a tie.

It goes to the House if no one reaches 270. Plurality isn't good enough.
---

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1199132418566971394?s=21

I heavily suspect this would backfire on Trump politically, but holy shit is it disgusting. It also brings up another ethical question: did Trump use his pardon power in order to acquire a (perceived) political benefit?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

did Trump use his pardon power in order to acquire a (perceived) political benefit?

no shit

I'd have to double check, but Gallagher isn't the one who was pardoned was he? IIRC, he was acquitted of the most serious charges when a witness abruptly changed his testimony on the stand upon gaining immunity but convicted on basically "conduct unbecoming and bringing dishonor to the navy" or some such. He "merely" intervened (or has threatened to, the whole thing is a mess what with the firing of the Secretary of the Navy) to keep the Navy from conducting its own internal discipline proceedings stemming in large part from said conviction.

It was one or two other guys he pardoned who had been convicted of war crimes. ...Unless again, I've mixed a few things up. I mean it's still gross but yeah.

Edit: Oh reading the article past the twitter headline now and he wants those guys campaigning for him too. Shows what I get for even extending the slightest bit of leniency for anything but the worst possible decision.
---

Gallagher was not one of the two pardoned, but he did get demoted as part of what you mentioned and Donald did restore his rank alongside the pardons.

xp1337 posted...

Yes, I'm 99% sure we've discussed this scenario before.

It is possible, but rather unlikely, state delegations could be flipped in 2020 to avert that but in that scenario it probably isn't a 269-269 tie soooo...

Are we sure its the new House that would vote and not the current one? That cuts it awful close if they have to wait until January when they are sworn in
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Are we sure its the new House that would vote and not the current one? That cuts it awful close if they have to wait until January when they are sworn in

Yes. By law Congress counts the electors and certifies the results on January 6th. Under the 20th Amendment the terms of the old Congress end and the new ones begin on January 3rd.
---

NYT oped from a former GOP Senator saying that impeachment is warranted and urging Republicans to look at the actual evidence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/opinion/my-fellow-republicans-please-follow-the-facts.html

---

https://twitter.com/nikkimcr/status/1199135926955466753?s=21

Tucker going full Vlado (especially farther down the thread)

You never want to go full Vlado
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I heavily suspect this would backfire on Trump politically

I dont think theres any evidence to support this.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/24/china-cables-leak-no-escapes-reality-china-uighur-prison-camp

---

Impeachment support has bounced back to +4.5 on 538:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

---

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/25/20982359/matt-bevin-kentucky-paul-donel-hurt-pardon

Matt Bevin pardons man who sexually assaulted his 6 year old step-daughter. Though the step-daughter (15 years later) recanted her testimony, it was strongly influenced by the original judge in the case who later corresponded with Hurt (the same judge who picked Hurt up from prison). Other judges were unconvinced by the recantation, but Bevin decided he'd go ahead and pardon this man.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/25/20982359/matt-bevin-kentucky-paul-donel-hurt-pardon

Matt Bevin pardons man who sexually assaulted his 6 year old step-daughter. Though the step-daughter (15 years later) recanted her testimony, it was strongly influenced by the original judge in the case who later corresponded with Hurt (the same judge who picked Hurt up from prison). Other judges were unconvinced by the recantation, but Bevin decided he'd go ahead and pardon this man.

It took me until the last few paragraphs to realize we weren't talking about Matt Bevin's step-daughter.
---

Well this seems like it could be bad news in the future

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/26/20981758/brett-kavanaughs-terrify-democrats-supreme-court-gundy-paul

the tldr is that the Supreme Court declined to take a case because it was too similar to a previous one, but Kavanaugh went out of his way to state that he agreed with the dissent in that previous case. The conservative justices there are basically arguing that Congress shouldn't be able to delegate broad power to federal agencies, and needs to be more specific. Which is bad, because some of those agencies are important, and a conservative, anti-regulatory SC would simply strike down more specific legislation it is opposed to.

---