Insurrection and running for office

[JohnRoberts]

And I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Can I trade you some swampland for it?

We talk a lot about suckers here, and H. Biden would be a sucker to buy into that line of BS. He would be destroyed in the media (by vicious GOP stooges) before the public had a chance to hear a single word out of his mouth.

? If anything mainstream media appears to be working with Team Biden, while their enthusiasm may be waning as President Biden's polls continue to weaken.

So are you so gullible that you believe this crap, or do you just like spreading manure around?

Neither.... Are you that unfamiliar with congressional procedures?

Hunter's legal team has flip-flopped and now says that they will sit for a private deposition. Coincidentally this change occurred after the contempt of congress motion has begun moving. I don't think many (any?) expect the Biden DOJ to prosecute a contempt of congress citation against Hunter. That is pretty small potatoes compared to his other pending charges (tax fraud, gun charges, etc).

JR

 

[hodad]

If anything mainstream media appears to be working with Team Biden,

Really? Is that what they tell you on Fox and Friends? Last I checked, you turned your nose up at the "mainstream media" (outside of Fox, of course); why in the world would I put any credence in your pontificating about what they "appear" to be doing?

I don't think many (any?) expect the Biden DOJ to prosecute a contempt of congress citation against Hunter

Has the "Biden" DOJ prosecuted any of the Congresscritters attacking H. Biden for the subpoenas they ignored? Oh, wait....we have to ignore that detail because we have to pretend that the "Biden" DOJ is acting in a partisan fashion.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Really? Is that what they tell you on Fox and Friends? Last I checked, you turned your nose up at the "mainstream media" (outside of Fox, of course); why in the world would I put any credence in your pontificating about what they "appear" to be doing?

I am not asking you to, just sharing my perspective.

Has the "Biden" DOJ prosecuted any of the Congresscritters attacking H. Biden for the subpoenas they ignored? Oh, wait....we have to ignore that detail because we have to pretend that the "Biden" DOJ is acting in a partisan fashion.

There are several republicans guilty of that too.
==
I hate politics but try to understand the games playing out in plain view... Hunter crashing his own contempt hearing does not compute. I would expect that President Biden's re-election campaign would prefer that Hunter stop stirring the political plot, by drawing even more attention to himself, and making him harder to downplay.
===
I have been paying attention to news reportage since the 1960s. Back when I was living in Boston I recalled seeing some dramatic disconnects between the mainstream TV and local newspaper reporting of Viet Nam antiwar protests, some events that I personally attended. Some modest amount of slippage is understandable when reporting about protests that had tens of thousands of people in attendance, but some omissions were significant.

Then later in the 70s I subscribed to and read three daily newspapers every day for one year, to determine the windage or bias between them. I realize that the one I settled on is not as pure as the driven snow, but was closest to my personal world view. These days even that paper's reportage has shifted left, or I have drifted to the right.
==
I understand that Fox caters more to my audience than what you watch, while there are some even more conservative news sources that I cannot tolerate.
===
Lately with some winter storm warnings, I have been watching my local TV news broadcasts (an ABC affiliate so their Disney ownership is unmistakably present). They do report the weather pretty competently, but almost humorously. A little snow and freezing rain forecast has everybody clutching their pearls.

JR

 

[fallout]

We talk a lot about suckers here, and H. Biden would be a sucker to buy into that line of BS. He would be destroyed in the media (by vicious GOP stooges) before the public had a chance to hear a single word out of his mouth. So are you so gullible that you believe this crap, or do you just like spreading manure around?

Wait.. we're talking about this guy, right? I don't think he'll need any help by the media to destroy himself.

 

[hodad]

Hunter crashing his own contempt hearing does not compute.

It actually kinda does, but I suspect H. Biden is more interested in what his lawyers think than his dad's campaign manager. The GOP has largely controlled the narrative on H. Biden's troubles. MTG has displayed dick pics in the house, unfounded conspiracy theories abound both in DC and in right wing media. Letting GOP House members grill him in private and then selectively leak bits of his testimony is bad for both H. and J. Biden. And as I stated, this is very much about politics and elections. In fact, it has been for about 4+ years now. By showing up and expressing a willingness to testify publicly, H. Biden makes the more crazed GOP types (Nancy Mace, eg) look like psychotic clowns. And instead of asking, "Why won't H. Biden testify," at least some people (though not on Fox and Friends, obviously) are now asking, "Why won't the GOP let H. Biden testify publicly?" Their apoplexy at the thought of his public testimony makes these conservative reps look ridiculous and a little underhanded--at least to those who care to look.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It actually kinda does, but I suspect H. Biden is more interested in what his lawyers think than his dad's campaign manager. The GOP has largely controlled the narrative on H. Biden's troubles. MTG has displayed dick pics in the house, unfounded conspiracy theories abound both in DC and in right wing media. Letting GOP House members grill him in private and then selectively leak bits of his testimony is bad for both H. and J. Biden. And as I stated, this is very much about politics and elections. In fact, it has been for about 4+ years now. By showing up and expressing a willingness to testify publicly, H. Biden makes the more crazed GOP types (Nancy Mace, eg) look like psychotic clowns. And instead of asking, "Why won't H. Biden testify," at least some people (though not on Fox and Friends, obviously) are now asking, "Why won't the GOP let H. Biden testify publicly?" Their apoplexy at the thought of his public testimony makes these conservative reps look ridiculous and a little underhanded--at least to those who care to look.

We can revisit this discussion "after" (if?) Hunter ever shows up to get deposed by staff lawyers in closed door session, so they can prepare for a follow up public hearing with the 5 minute dog and pony sound bite questions.

As it stands right now he has ignored the original subpoena. His lawyer is now saying that he will submit to questioning if they issue a second subpoena, claiming the first one was invalid. This is some expensive DC lawyer mumbo jumbo.

After he blew off the original subpoena and then later crashed his contempt hearing with a documentary camera, two different committees went ahead and declared him in contempt.

I can't imagine any republicans being afraid of Hunter's public testimony.

JR

 

[hodad]

This is some expensive DC lawyer mumbo jumbo.

Have you looked at any of Trump's filings? If you want to see mumbo jumbo, you will definitely find it in those fanciful documents.

I can't imagine any republicans being afraid of Hunter's public testimony.

I think you missed the point. It's not that they're scared; they simply want the opportunity to control public perception through calculated leaks of closed-door testimony. So far, their investigations have netted roughly diddly and squat. They have, however, done a decent job of coloring (a certain segment of) the public's perception of the case; if H. Biden testifying publicly first, before they have the opportunity to selectively leak closed-door testimony, then it may screw with their political attack plans. That is why Nancy Mace was freaking out the other day.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Have you looked at any of Trump's filings? If you want to see mumbo jumbo, you will definitely find it in those fanciful documents.

No I haven't and I don't plan to.

I think you missed the point. It's not that they're scared; they simply want the opportunity to control public perception through calculated leaks of closed-door testimony. So far, their investigations have netted roughly diddly and squat. They have, however, done a decent job of coloring (a certain segment of) the public's perception of the case; if H. Biden testifying publicly first, before they have the opportunity to selectively leak closed-door testimony, then it may screw with their political attack plans. That is why Nancy Mace was freaking out the other day.

I did not realize that the republicans were so masterful at controlling public perception, by leaking closed door testimony.

JR

 

[hodad]

No I haven't and I don't plan to.

Ignorance is bliss, eh? Better not to look too close--you might actually feel compelled to change your mind if you bothered to look at the evidence & judge for yourself. We wouldn't want that, now would we?

I did not realize that the republicans were so masterful at controlling public perception, by leaking closed door testimony

Well, a great example of this was Bill Barr's "summary" of the Mueller report. If one bothered to look at the (rather long) report, the picture was not nearly as rosy as Barr chose to interpret it. But Barr put his summary out before anyone had a chance to see the real thing. It was out there first and colored expectations. Plus, it was only four pages, so it was a lot easier for media members (and interested citizens) to wrap their heads around. By controlling the flow of information, and by getting his side out there first, Barr manipulated perceptions in his favor. That's the sort of thing that I expect Republican congresscritters would like to do with H. Biden testimony. If you control the initial interpretation of the testimony, it's a lot less likely that an interpretation running counter to yours will gain the level of traction it otherwise might.

On the other side, H. Biden is countering by making folks question Republicans' motives in their absolute determination to have him testify behind closed doors. It may not work with you, since you seem to have shuttered yourself off from anything that might reflect poorly on your Republican heroes (see your words I quoted at the top of this message); but others might be a little more open-minded than you.

 

[Matador]

No I haven't and I don't plan to.

You are missing some great originalist musings. My particular favorite was that the only way a President could be held criminally accountable for ordering Seal Team 6 to murder his political opponent, was if he was first impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate by a 2/3's majority. In other words, only a political process would allow for a criminal proceeding....exactly as our founders intended.

Well, a great example of this was Bill Barr's "summary" of the Mueller report. If one bothered to look at the (rather long) report, the picture was not nearly as rosy as Barr chose to interpret it.

You have to realize that Trump's crimes are the feature, not the bug.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You are missing some great originalist musings. My particular favorite was that the only way a President could be held criminally accountable for ordering Seal Team 6 to murder his political opponent, was if he was first impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate by a 2/3's majority. In other words, only a political process would allow for a criminal proceeding....exactly as our founders intended.


You have to realize that Trump's crimes are the feature, not the bug.

those talking points all all over the news media... I wish I could miss it...

JR

 

[Matador]

those talking points all all over the news media... I wish I could miss it...

If by "talking points", you mean the actual points that were made while someone was talking, then yes.

For those (other people) who are interested, here is the actual transcript of what was argued in court:

JUDGE: Can I explore the implications of what you’re arguing? I understand your position to be that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act that he takes as president, even if that action is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose. Is that correct?

TRUMPS LAWYER: With an important exception, which is that if the president is impeached and convicted by the United States Senate in a proceeding that reflects widespread political consensus, that would authorize the prosecution under the plain language of the judgment clause. So yes, with that exception.
...
JUDGE: Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act in order to SEAL Team Six.

TRUMPS LAWYER: He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution.
...
JUDGE: I’ve asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts, and have asked you, would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached or convicted. And your answer, your yes or no answer, is no.

TRUMPS LAWYER: I believe I said qualified yes if he’s impeached or convicted first....So if there’s no impeachment ever and no conviction, then the official acts are immune, period.

 

[jabe]

Talking having a point? Well now I've heard of everything.

 

[pucho812]

This is no shock here but often times when the system has the outcome a party wants it’s fine. But with the current crop of uninformed and misinformed voters when they don’t get the outcome they want the system needs to be changed. The electoral college is a prime example of that. It works as designed. It’s a great design. Was fine for over 200 years. But they want it changed because it doesn’t yield what they want. There are rules in place to do that if required. But like everything else, be careful what you wish for. Things like changing the senate rules and how it operates are short sided solutions. It will come back to bite you in the ass.

Trump just won the Iowa primaries. Suppose he wins again and is the guy for the gop. Imagine states trying to get him off the ballot in the general election .

 

[hodad]

Even better than popular vote would be ranked choice voting,

I think Alaska's got that going on right now. It's worth keeping an eye on to see what the pluses & minuses might be. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it yet, but I'm certainly curious.

I can't stand things like gerrymandering, but it still is a legal process.

Not legal in Ohio anymore, but that hasn't stopped Republicans from doing it. The state Supreme Court tells them they're not supposed to do it, but there's no enforcement mechanism. So it goes.

 

[jabe]

The electoral college is a prime example of that. It works as designed. It’s a great design. Was fine for over 200 years. But they want it changed because it doesn’t yield what they want.

It was "fine" because for most of those 200 years the winner of the Electoral College was the candidate who got the most votes. (The exceptions were 1824, 1876 and 1888. Look them up to see how "fine" they went.)
In our current age, of the past 4 presidents HALF came to office while losing the popular vote. It turns out "what they want" first and foremost is for the guy with the most votes to actually win.
The "tyranny of the majority" arguments against the popular vote ignore that the remedy is enumerations of rights and separation of powers, not simple minority rule.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I love all this mind reading stretching back centuries into the past. If our founders wanted simple democracy, we would have it.

This contention comes down to simple power struggle between urban and rural voters.

The electoral college is not new, so candidates running for office know the rules and work to win within the system.

JR

PS: The basic philosophy of our constitution is about protecting individual rights and freedoms, not imposing central government dictates over the people. SCOTUS has agreed to review the Chevron Deference. IMO this could be significant regarding the administrative state.

 

[Matador]

I love all this mind reading stretching back centuries into the past.

I'm happy to see you are starting to reject originalism.

 

[jabe]

Everyone gets that the Founding Fathers didn't want the President elected by popular vote. They also get that 65% of Americans today do want it. No mind reading necessary.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It was "fine" because for most of those 200 years the winner of the Electoral College was the candidate who got the most votes. (The exceptions were 1824, 1876 and 1888. Look them up to see how "fine" they went.)

Nothing catastrophic occurred as a result of those elections. Like most results it was a mixed bag. Among the good would the Sherman Antitrust Act. Or maybe you think it was not "fine" because Republicans won or something. But "the parties were switched" back then or something.

In our current age, of the past 4 presidents HALF came to office while losing the popular vote. It turns out "what they want" first and foremost is for the guy with the most votes to actually win.

"The votes" are cast in the electoral college. We are the United States of America and the states effectively elect POTUS with a mostly proportional vote (# of allocated House members + 2 Senators). It is a simple and elegant way to balance proportionality and the individual states while avoiding the tyranny of the simple majority. Interestingly I don't hear any of you whining about the UN which has a completely non-proportional vote (and whose "representatives" are not elected at all). Same with screwed up proportionality in the EU.

The "tyranny of the majority" arguments against the popular vote ignore that the remedy is enumerations of rights and separation of powers, not simple minority rule.

Yet the neo-left want to also reduce or remove those same rights you mention in addition to having "majority rule" which is a recipe for disaster. We don't have anything approaching "simple minority rule," whatever that is. One solution that about 5M American citizens have taken in the last decade is to move to a state that matches your beliefs wrt government. As a result we see a huge outflow of people from big gov/high tax blue states (CA, NY, IL, NJ) to smaller gov/low tax states like FL, SC, TX, NC, GA, etc.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-biggest-mass-migrations-american-113000683.html
Your proposed solutions require Amendments to the Constitution. Go ahead. We have the mechanism in place and it has been used in the past.