President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:55 pm

So soon the Trump is burned and we arrive where we were always heading: A disgusting redux of the disgusting B. Clinton administration. The first time was more farce than the second will be. Not that both are not tragic -- for the people at the bottom of the hill, who get the shit rolling down on their heads.

But in some ways, here is the same situation as in 1992-98: The Republicans and the Republican-leaning deep state can't hit the Clintons for their actual political crimes, because those are not really Clinton crimes. These are crimes of state, or crimes equally of Republicans. (Back in the 1990s the mutually assured destruction move was Mena.) So they look for something on the side. In the 1990s, that was the petty Arkansas real estate deals, indistinguishable from standard practice of politicians in almost every other state, known as "Whitewater." And then, of course, Clinton's penis. With H. Clinton until now, it was "Benghazi," a side-accident that was the predictable outcome of the Libyan regime change operation. And now the e-mails, which are very interesting for the content. Except the corporate media coverage and the Republicans aren't interested in the content. (Nor, obviously are the Democrats.)

Never mind your order to commit a war of aggression to destroy the country of Libya, that's just sound policy! What matters is that you sent it from the wrong server!

And of course the issue always, always, is whether they can get Clinton. It does not matter at all whether felonies or misdemeanors or mass murders were committed. It's all about advantage, and any means is equally good.

The mug's game I now see being played is trying to figure out what Comey is doing. I'm pretty sure it's as I lay it out: Many or most Republican politicians and deep-staters, I presume, prefer a Clinton win to a Trump win. The deep staters (I am speculating) would prefer her for the foreign policy stability, and the Republican establishment (we all know) prefer her because they figure they can get more action out of a weak Clinton than by having this honest-fascist-for-morons schtick artist ruin their show.

Comey's moves, first hammering Clinton when she's too far up, then suddenly pretending to exonerate her again once Trump is too close, seem calibrated to make sure that Trump is defeated, but not too decisively, thus reducing the risk of a Democratic Congress. Which would be far more of a threat, since then the Democratic left (such as they are) would be clamoring and Clinton would lose the welcome cover of a Republican Congress.

But that's just what seems. I don't pretend to be in Comey's head!

People hear about a given connection, take it as though it is static, and assume it suffices to explain someone's motives. Depending on what Comey's doing today, he's the committed partisan Republican Whitewater investigator of old, who wants to do damage to the noble Clintons. But wait, he is under pressure from The Man (Obama).

Or else, he's a beneficiary of the Clinton Foundation, and actually he wants to shield her from the investigation.

When he opens his trap about the e-mails, it's one accusation. When he shuts up again, it's the other. And of course, there is no way to prove either, or figure out for sure what's really going on, since there may be any number of influences we cannot see. Who knows who's got what dirt on whom, or who benefits in what way from what, or who is in a position to influence Comey?

People come with their partisan preferences, so they present full narratives of one or the other, without bothering to acknowledge alternate possibilities. And it's all talking out their ass, and it's a complete waste of time, above all because it is about details only and lacks all the context that matters.

Who the fuck cares what Comey is thinking? Isn't it more important that these people are all alligators in a rotten swamp? Drain the swamp!

The FBI is political police and always has been, since Hoover's days on the Palmer Raids in 1919-20. The best thing that can come of this is to expose its general functioning as such.

The Clintons are very successful opportunists who built a faction within a power elite. Anything that damages them alone, without effecting a political shift away from war and neoliberalism, is just a factional distraction. It shouldn't matter to us. The move after the election will be to continue the election show for another xxx months, wherein everything that matters in the world continues to be ignored and the corporate media and the Greater Punditry of Twitterface continue to talk about her fucking e-mails and Trump's responses to the latest developments in her saga. Those of us in urban areas who have little means of escaping public TV screens and endless human chatter will come to consider it a mercy if this leads to a quick impeachment. How strange, that this will be both a deserved comeuppance (really a minor punishment) and yet, at the same time, an injustice, since the impeachers will be criminals equal to the Clintons.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Pence and the New Era of Intrapartisan Intrigu

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:58 pm

Just bumping to update your post title. Fasten your seatbelts! :starz:
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

President Wire Hanger

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:18 pm

do you think the dems will filibuster President Wire Hanger Supreme Court nominees?
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President P***ygrabber

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:33 pm

After the threats McCain and Cruz made assuming Trump would lose, they better. Among the Dems that are there, there are very few blue dogs. They better goddam show some spine.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:39 pm

Well this is done.

Though it's a long way to December 19th yet.

Trump's civil suit court date (rape allegation) still on Dec. 16?

No, canceled.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3680028/donald ... eek-video/

Trump University case supposedly for Nov 28.

This one I now expect to get offered some huge fucking no-disclosure settlements.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/10/ ... ity-court/

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

President P***ygrabber

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:46 pm

seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:09 pm wrote:
NOT ABOVE THE LAW

75 Lawsuits Against President-Elect Trump

An astounding number of court battles—from Trump University suits to libel cases—will accompany Trump even as he moves into the White House.
Brandy Zadrozny
BRANDY ZADROZNY

11.10.16 12:15 AM ET
President-elect Donald Trump will be spending the days running up to his inauguration in an unprecedented fashion. Along with choosing his cabinet and scheduling the busiest first day in office ever, the reality television star will also be defending himself in several courts of law.
The real-estate developer turned politician is familiar with the courtroom. As reported by USA Today in June, Trump has been a party to some 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years—a uniquely large number of actions framed by detractors as a telling indicator of a life of crooked dealing, and by supporters as simply the cost of running an enormously successful business in America.
Whatever one’s position on the election, it’s clear that Trump’s ongoing court battles—somewhere around 75, according to the USA Today analysis—are the first of their kind for any president, and because even the highest office in the land is not above the law, will accompany Trump as he moves into the White House.
At issue in Trump’s most well-known and problematic legal battles—the subject of three separate lawsuits in fact—is Trump University, the eponymous real-estate seminar program that former students say was nothing more than a scam selling Trump-made promises of financial success that never materialized and stripped the poor, the naive, and the elderly of life’s savings instead.
The federal class action cases were filed in 2010 and 2013, before Trump made good on his decades of teasing a presidential run. They are both being heard in California, by Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was dragged into the campaign over the summer when Trump told an interviewer that the case was stacked against him because Curiel was “a Mexican,” and explained, “we’re building a wall between here and Mexico.” (Judge Curiel was born in Indiana.)
The fraud case filed in 2010, Low v. Trump University, goes to trial in less than three weeks. The second, Cohen v. Trump, alleges Trump’s “school” was really a criminal organization and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Lawyers are currently fighting over evidence in that case and a trial date hasn’t been set.
The New York fraud case—which was also brought back in 2013 and alleges Trump’s unlicensed university scammed New Yorkers out of a collective $40 million—is still a go, according to Amy Spitalnick of the New York State Attorney General’s Office. A judge decided in March that the case would go to trial, but Trump has appealed the ruling.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman responded at the time in a statement that read in part, “This meritless appeal is yet another example of how Donald Trump will do everything in his power to avoid standing trial for allegedly defrauding hundreds of financially struggling New Yorkers at Trump University… We look forward to holding Donald Trump accountable for this brazen scam when he finally faces trial.”
The next relevant date is Dec. 5, when the people’s opening brief is due.
But allegations of fraud are really just the beginning for President Trump.
Most of the 75 open lawsuits are likely going nowhere. More than a dozen of the 20 ongoing federal cases where Trump is a defendant are actual nonsense, filed against the future president along with co-defendants Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even Walt Disney, on behalf of seemingly mentally-ill plaintiffs. (Anyone can file a lawsuit.) The complaints in the wildest cases include allegations of kidnapping by the president-elect and his son—members of the supposed Illuminati.
Others may turn out to be much more legitimate. Members of Trump’s golf course in Jupiter, Florida, are currently suing the flaxen-haired businessman for $2.4 million for taking fees and dues while allegedly blocking admission to the actual club. A former employee of the same club brought a lawsuit last month, alleging she was unlawfully fired after reporting sexual harassment by a coworker.
A hearing is scheduled in Chicago on Nov. 29, in another case alleging Trump’s campaign violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages urging the plaintiff to “Help Make America Great Again!”
And there’s more. In New York State, two open cases are making their way through the courts. Republican consultant Cheryl Jacobus filed a $4 million libel lawsuit after Trump “destroyed her career,” namely by calling her “a dummy” on Twitter. And a status conference is scheduled for next week in the case of Efrain Galicia, who in 2015 sued the then-candidate when one of Trump’s security guards assaulted him during a protest outside of Trump Tower. (There’s a video of the incident.)
This is not an exhaustive list and there may be other suits winding their way through the legal system in the coming months. But Trump’s camp doesn’t seem alarmed.
Alan Garten told USA Today, “We’ll treat all cases the same way if he’s elected or not—and the results shouldn’t be different in the eyes of the law.”
Though presidential immunity may keep Trump safe from civil liability for any shady schools he starts from the White House or any libelous tweets he sends from Obama’s seized @potus account, litigation involving pre-presidential conduct can proceed as it would had Trump lost the election.
“The lawsuits don’t stop because someone happens to be president of the United States,” said Michael Gerhardt, a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill.
The decision that will keep the wheels of justice moving for dozens of plaintiffs suing Trump, ironically came from the Supreme Court’s 9-to-0 ruling in 1997 which allowed Paula Jones’s lawsuit alleging sexual harassment by Bill Clinton to move forward.
Though Trump could be deposed or have to testify in the cases against him, the time away from the Oval Office wouldn’t likely be too taxing as Trump depends heavily on his team of attorneys. What’s more dangerous, Gerhardt said, is the risk of discovery—that testimony or evidence gathered in the litigation of a case could be embarrassing to a sitting president, or worse, “could warrant an impeachment.”
An impeachment in a Republican-dominated House of Representatives is extremely unlikely, but two lawyers have already dangled the threat of discovery in front of the soon-to-be president. Famed feminist attorney Gloria Allred and her daughter, civil-rights lawyer Lisa Bloom, told Trump to back off his threats to sue the handful of women who came forward during the campaign to accuse the Republican candidate of harassment or sexual assault, including forced kissing and groping.
In a statement, Bloom said, “In that lawsuit I would take the deposition of Trump and all of his enablers, and subpoena his business and personal records as well as any recordings that may exist in which he brags about sexual assault, such as the Access Hollywood recording and potentially, the Apprentice raw footage.”
The possible humiliation and danger of discovery aside, Gerhardt said a defamation suit against the women or any others by whom the famously litigious Trump might feel aggrieved, would be ill-advised.
“[Trump] would have to deal with the law as it is, not as he would like it to be, Gerhardt said. “Truth is a defense,” that could potentially lead to an impeachment, and damages would be hard to prove.
“Given the fact that the man was just elected president, it might be hard to quantify his harm.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... trump.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby 2012 Countdown » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:25 pm

I was just informed by CNN that all of Con's business interests are not required by law to be put in 'blind trust'. Its also private.
They also say there is no law that would forbid him from profiting from any and all presidential decisions. Conflict of interest, even gaudy. massive, outright contract steering is not expressly illegal.

Cheney-Halliburton....wel I can only imagine the looting about to occur. Think of all the 'deals' this sociopath will give himself.

Yes Jack. I bet they make all that go away.


Its all so maddening/depressing.
George Carlin ~ "Its called 'The American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
User avatar
2012 Countdown
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby KUAN » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 am

I got that one right


KUAN » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:54 pm wrote:Lot of staging going on for the brexit referendum which will be part of the next UK elections too
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby KUAN » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:53 pm

The result will be not leave I tells ya
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:22 pm

Damn, people keep bumping this one from back when Clinton was a 97% lock.

Though the title's cute, I'll give me that.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Kaine and the New Era of Bipartisan Feeling

Postby KUAN » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:05 am

If I'm right I'll share the win ok?
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests