Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: ICE, ICE, baby - Immigrati...

Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 04:47:51 PM

As expected Tyranny reigns.

#2

Off the Record / Re: ICE, ICE, baby - Immigrati...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 04:18:40 PM

I have watched the latest incidents from a few angles and this is very obviously another execution.

#3

Off the Record / Re: ICE, ICE, baby - Immigrati...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 04:17:57 PM

There is no upside to wasting mental bandwidth on US internal issues at this point except in a national security sense. They're not a role model for governance, civic amenities, or culture really. Mentally downgrade them to "Brazilian government decides to employ the military to clear out Venezuelan migrants". You glance at the headline and move on with your life.

Quite right and nicely put.

Would be the right approach for my mental health for sure.

#4

Off the Record / Re: ICE, ICE, baby - Immigrati...

Last post by Zoupa - Today at 03:51:45 PM

There is no upside to wasting mental bandwidth on US internal issues at this point except in a national security sense. They're not a role model for governance, civic amenities, or culture really. Mentally downgrade them to "Brazilian government decides to employ the military to clear out Venezuelan migrants". You glance at the headline and move on with your life.

Quite right and nicely put.

#5

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by mongers - Today at 03:17:27 PM

Who cares if it's disproportionate? In what way does it matter?

Why are we drowning ourselves in Trump? And the very minimum time that could be spent productively is not spent in that manner. It also feels like it just reinforces more Trump content being pushed at us.

On a practical level, blanket coverage isn't good for individual's and the nation's mental health.

#6

Off the Record / Re: Podcasts you like

Last post by mongers - Today at 02:58:32 PM

A two part radio drama about the possible nature of the relationship between Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton:

Drama on 4 - Nick Dear's Dedication

Might interest one or two here. 

#7

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Razgovory - Today at 02:57:17 PM

I have no problem setting a president that a President can be forced to testify before Congress.

#8

Off the Record / Re: ICE, ICE, baby - Immigrati...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 02:24:26 PM

It's only a waste if they can't create a situation bad enough to serve as pretext for Trump's third term.

#9

Off the Record / Re: ICE, ICE, baby - Immigrati...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 02:22:35 PM

Everytime I see footage of ICE activities in Minneapolis or Chicago, or any other city then been deployed to terrorize, there is a gaggle of ICE agents milling about with their giant SUVs and tactical gear.  The whistles are really superfluous at this point, as they stand out so glaringly even undocumented Hellen Keller would know whenever ICE is in the vicinity.  It doesn't seem like these people have the slightest clue what they are doing. 

The budget for the agency is now greater than the entire Justice Department (including the FBI, DEA, US Marshalls, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, the US Attorneys' office in all 50 states and fed districts, and Main Justice).  It's higher the entire defense budget for either Israel or Italy. It's about 10 times higher than it was under Obama, who still managed more deportations. What a colossal waste.  It would take every Somali fraudster in the world 1000 years to screw over the taxpayer more.

[To prosecute the Clintons, the Trump administration would have to hand over the documents they have been slow walking for a year. The Clintons are effectively holding a gun to the DOJ's head. They are saying, "Go ahead. Charge us. But if you do, you have to give us the files."]

#10

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 01:39:36 PM

The political world gasped yesterday. But for once, it wasn't because of a scandal. It was because Bill and Hillary Clinton just looked the House

Oversight Committee in the eye and effectively told them to go to hell. The subpoena demanded their presence for a closed door deposition regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons didn't just decline. They sent a legal letter so scorching it practically burned the paper it was printed on.

The breakdown of the last 24 hours is simple. Chairman James Comer issued the summons, expecting the former power couple to fold or plead the Fifth. Instead, they refused to show up entirely. In response, the committee voted yesterday to hold them in contempt of Congress. But if Republicans think they just scored a victory, they might want to check the chessboard again. They may have just walked into a trap.

The rejection letter from the Clinton legal team was not standard boilerplate. It called the subpoenas "invalid" and "legally unenforceable." It accused the committee of harassment "untethered to a valid legislative purpose." This matches the sentiment of "eat sh*t" perfectly, though phrased in the polite brutality of high priced lawyers. They explicitly stated they would "forcefully defend" themselves.

Here is the core of their argument. It is actually a point that transparency advocates have been making for years. The Clintons argued that it is absurd for Congress to interrogate them about the Epstein files while the government is simultaneously refusing to release those very files. They asked a simple question. How can we testify about evidence you are hiding from us and the public?

This is where the strategy gets brilliant. Legal analysts are buzzing about a theory called "Forced Discovery." By refusing to testify, the Clintons are practically begging to be prosecuted. If the House refers them to the Department of Justice, and if the Trump DOJ actually decides to charge them with Contempt of Congress, the dynamic flips instantly.

Once they become criminal defendants, the game changes. In a criminal trial, the defense has broad rights to see the evidence against them. This is known as "discovery." If the government wants to put them in jail for what they know or didn't say about Epstein, the Clintons can argue that they cannot defend themselves without seeing the full, unredacted Epstein files.

It is the ultimate checkmate. To prosecute the Clintons, the Trump administration would have to hand over the documents they have been slow walking for a year. The Clintons are effectively holding a gun to the DOJ's head. They are saying, "Go ahead. Charge us. But if you do, you have to give us the files."

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The letter the Clinton lawyers sent doesn't demand that the Epstein files be turned over or say anything much about them.  If the Clintons were charged with contempt with Congress, I don't think discovery would extend to turning over the entirety of the Epstein files, as they would have little relevance to a contempt of Congress charge.

Moreover, there is already a gun to DOJ's head - there is a federal statute requiring them to turn over the files.  I don't think a defendant's discovery request adds much additional weight.  If they are willing to flagrantly violate a federal statute, I can't see them caving just because a party makes a discovery request.

More broadly, the Clintons are represented by a strong legal team.  I would presume they know what they are doing.  But the approach seems very high risk to me.  They could have gone to Court to quash the subpoenas prior to the deposition date.  Or they could have appeared in person, stated their objections on the record, and refused to answer further questions until those defenses are adjudicated.  Not showing up at all is what got Navarro and Bannon jail time. 

Politically, it's also forced some Democrats to cross party lines to recommend contempt out of defense of Congressional power, which makes sense given the likelihood that the Democrats in at least one house may secure subpoena power in 2027. It's terrible timing for Democrats to create a precedent for defiance of Congressional subpoenas.