L L wrote:
For something to be politically devastating implies there will be ramifications or some kind of consequences.
This looks like simply bad news but no changes.
Dersh also pointed out that Tiny's greater danger comes from the southern district of New York. That's probably true. It will be much harder for Tiny to beat the rap if he is charged with financial crimes.
MA GA , OOPS! wrote:
That TrumpCONomy his worshippers slobber over … well, about that.
GM to slash jobs and production, cancel some car models
RIP US production in Ohio and Michigan. RIP Chevrolet Volt, Impala and Cruze; the Cadillac CT6 and XTS; and the Buick LaCrosse. RIP 10,000+ jobs.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-restructuring-idUSKCN1NV1NB
I'm not so sure that this has much to do with the economy. It's about getting rid of inefficient gas cars in favor of electric models.
Nations around the world are switching to electric and GM is well positioned to deliver. Its all-electric Bolt EV was Motor Trend "Car of the Year" last year and they've been able to quickly sell every EV they produce.
There are a lot of factors to GM's business decisions but this didn't help:
"The company has said tariffs on imported steel, imposed earlier this year by the Trump administration, have cost it $1 billion."
The Fokus wrote:
agip wrote:
I think Dershowitz is going under the deluded view that the Republican Party would back away from Trump is Mueller shows how he obstructed justice, cheated on his taxes, laundered mone, conspired against America and broke election funding laws.
Silly Alan. Republicans will never care about Trump's lawbreaking. Never.
No 'devastating' will happen.
The Republicans will begin to care if they think it will cost them significantly in the 2020 election although I agree with your premise.
Dershowitz has said that he believes Mueller will simply issue a report of his findings with no recommendations and let the politicians deal with it. This is similar to a viewpoint I've long held. It will become a political football. I'm just interest in the level the report goes to...particularly any of Trump's financial information. I'm not sure that portion of the report is made publice, particularly initially, if Whitaker remains AG through the period the report is submitted by Mueller.
Those looking for definitive conclusions, I think, will be disappointed.
My understanding is that Whitaker will get the report. if he goes along with its recommendations, then he can bury it. if he disagrees with it, then he has to issue it to congress. I might have something wrong.
I don't think Mueller will release the thing with no recommendations...because that would let Whitaker bury it.
As for spanky costing the repub party...two issues. The elected repubs and the voters. The elected repubs will never back away from spanky because if they do...a trumpist will challenge him in the republican primary. Republican primary voters are the worst, so there is a good chance the insurgent would win. The way the party is polarized now...the only repubs left will be in hard red districts, so to stay elected...the R just has to get through the primary. Going against trump will hurt him in the primary so he won't do it.
But yeah the Indies and some female Rs will certainly leave the R party behind and that will hurt the Rs on the margin. Read the upper Midwest and Penna, which will elect Beto president. But elected Rs can't really help that - they just need to survive the R primary season. So they will stay with trump forever.
just did a little reading on what happens when mueller writes report.
It's not completely clear, but it seems that Mueller writes a long report and gives it to Whitaker.
Whitaker then is supposed to tell congress what it says, in summary form. Congress doesnt' get the report.
Mueller's report stays confidential, most likely.
This is why Whitaker was put in place - to stop damaging info from getting to congress.
I'm not completely clear on what whitaker's responsibilities are, but it seems he has some broad discretion on what to when Mueller is done.
God what a garbage person trump is.
Make America Great Again wrote:
L L wrote:
Politically devastating.
Does that mean impeachable?
How about convictable?
A sitting president cannot be indicted.
Dems don't have enough Senators to remove the president.
Presidential harassment didn't work well for the GOP in 1990s.
1) No law that says a sitting President can't be indicted. Just a DOJ guideline. I do not think Mueller will indict Trump while he is President though...plenty of time for that after.
2) If the charges are bad enough, shame on any Republicans who don't do the right thing and vote to convict. Conspiracy with Russia to win an election is more than enough for anyone to decide to remove him. If that's what's in the report and Republicans don't vote to remove him, then they all deserve to feel the wrath of history looking down at them.
3) "Presidential harassment" isn't a thing. Just a talking point by Trump and members of the GOP to once again be seen as a victim here. I'm glad he feels harassed though...he should...he's a criminal.
The Fokus wrote:
L L wrote:
Then why would Dershowitz use the word "devastating"?
Those outcomes don't seem devastating.
It doesn't appear that Dershowitz defines devastating but here is what he said:
Dershowitz said despite his expectation for a "politically very devastating report," he doesn't think criminal charges will be brought forward.
"When I say devastating, I mean it's going to paint a picture that's going to be politically very devastating," he said. "I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case, because collusion is not criminal."
He felt the report would be released to the public with a Republican response included after it first gets to Whitaker. The response is already being written.
Dershowitz is an idiot. It's a shame that he has hitched his wagon to Trump. For him to say "collusion is not criminal" at this point is beyond ridiculous and misdirecting. CONSPIRACY is criminal though, and that will be the charge! For him to use collusion like that would be the same as if he said "sneaky dealings aren't criminal". What a hack.
Flagpole wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
It doesn't appear that Dershowitz defines devastating but here is what he said:
He felt the report would be released to the public with a Republican response included after it first gets to Whitaker. The response is already being written.
Dershowitz is an idiot. It's a shame that he has hitched his wagon to Trump. For him to say "collusion is not criminal" at this point is beyond ridiculous and misdirecting. CONSPIRACY is criminal though, and that will be the charge! For him to use collusion like that would be the same as if he said "sneaky dealings aren't criminal". What a hack.
I saw the interview and Dersh was pressed on exactly that point. His response was that he thinks it will be hard to make a conspiracy charge that sticks.
I think that all depends on what is revealed. THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE MATTERS A LOT!!
And we just can't judge until we know more.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Dershowitz is an idiot. It's a shame that he has hitched his wagon to Trump. For him to say "collusion is not criminal" at this point is beyond ridiculous and misdirecting. CONSPIRACY is criminal though, and that will be the charge! For him to use collusion like that would be the same as if he said "sneaky dealings aren't criminal". What a hack.
I saw the interview and Dersh was pressed on exactly that point. His response was that he thinks it will be hard to make a conspiracy charge that sticks.
I think that all depends on what is revealed. THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE MATTERS A LOT!!
And we just can't judge until we know more.
and we may never know more because Whitaker could bury this whole thing.
that does leave the states to start the final drive toward Mar a Lago.
and I have to think that Mueller is leaving tracks everywhere for future investigators to find.
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I saw the interview and Dersh was pressed on exactly that point. His response was that he thinks it will be hard to make a conspiracy charge that sticks.
I think that all depends on what is revealed. THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE MATTERS A LOT!!
And we just can't judge until we know more.
and we may never know more because Whitaker could bury this whole thing.
that does leave the states to start the final drive toward Mar a Lago.
and I have to think that Mueller is leaving tracks everywhere for future investigators to find.
yup
Fat hurts wrote:
MA GA , OOPS! wrote:
That TrumpCONomy his worshippers slobber over … well, about that.
GM to slash jobs and production, cancel some car models
RIP US production in Ohio and Michigan. RIP Chevrolet Volt, Impala and Cruze; the Cadillac CT6 and XTS; and the Buick LaCrosse. RIP 10,000+ jobs.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-restructuring-idUSKCN1NV1NBI'm not so sure that this has much to do with the economy. It's about getting rid of inefficient gas cars in favor of electric models.
Nations around the world are switching to electric and GM is well positioned to deliver. Its all-electric Bolt EV was Motor Trend "Car of the Year" last year and they've been able to quickly sell every EV they produce.
ELECTRIC!!! But Saudi oil is forever. It will never run out. Electric panels on car roofs is a joke. Climate change is a hoax.
— Real Live Trumper
Flagpole wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
It doesn't appear that Dershowitz defines devastating but here is what he said:
He felt the report would be released to the public with a Republican response included after it first gets to Whitaker. The response is already being written.
Dershowitz is an idiot. It's a shame that he has hitched his wagon to Trump. For him to say "collusion is not criminal" at this point is beyond ridiculous and misdirecting. CONSPIRACY is criminal though, and that will be the charge! For him to use collusion like that would be the same as if he said "sneaky dealings aren't criminal". What a hack.
I once attended a lecture by Dershowitz in which he claimed he was on more intimate terms with history than the average American. How funny that now, as he is snubbed by rich liberals on Martha's Vinyard, he is claiming he is the victim of a sort of McCarthyism. For someone who claims historical knowledge he has a poor understanding of the McCarthy era.
agip wrote:
just did a little reading on what happens when mueller writes report.
It's not completely clear, but it seems that Mueller writes a long report and gives it to Whitaker.
Whitaker then is supposed to tell congress what it says, in summary form. Congress doesnt' get the report.
Mueller's report stays confidential, most likely.
This is why Whitaker was put in place - to stop damaging info from getting to congress.
I'm not completely clear on what whitaker's responsibilities are, but it seems he has some broad discretion on what to when Mueller is done.
God what a garbage person trump is.
This is how it is designed to play out, however you can rest assured there is plan B for getting the report to Congress. If it’s a damming report and Whitaker tried to bury it then it will definitely be leaked to Congress members. We will all know what it says, regardless of the outcome.
Fentrekker wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Dershowitz is an idiot. It's a shame that he has hitched his wagon to Trump. For him to say "collusion is not criminal" at this point is beyond ridiculous and misdirecting. CONSPIRACY is criminal though, and that will be the charge! For him to use collusion like that would be the same as if he said "sneaky dealings aren't criminal". What a hack.
I once attended a lecture by Dershowitz in which he claimed he was on more intimate terms with history than the average American. How funny that now, as he is snubbed by rich liberals on Martha's Vinyard, he is claiming he is the victim of a sort of McCarthyism. For someone who claims historical knowledge he has a poor understanding of the McCarthy era.
Dersh let his ego bury him in a hole he can’t get out of. His initial opinion on Trump was ok, but he doubled down and lashed out at the MSM like a Trumper and then severed ties with CNN in favor of FOX. That’s called choosing to go to the other side, not being a victim. If anything he’s a victim of his own ego.
Electric Burger wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm not so sure that this has much to do with the economy. It's about getting rid of inefficient gas cars in favor of electric models.
Nations around the world are switching to electric and GM is well positioned to deliver. Its all-electric Bolt EV was Motor Trend "Car of the Year" last year and they've been able to quickly sell every EV they produce.
ELECTRIC!!! But Saudi oil is forever. It will never run out. Electric panels on car roofs is a joke. Climate change is a hoax.
— Real Live Trumper
Electric panels on a car roof actually is sort of a joke, or at least just a gimmick. It's kind of wasteful to put PV cells where they won't generate much electricity. But solar panels are great on your house or in utility-scale installations.
China is kicking our butts right now in building modern energy infrastructure. If we don't implement the Green New Deal then China will dominate us for the next 50 years.
Fat hurts wrote:
You are talking about the mortality rate of one specific disease that we are getting better at fighting. You know very well that is not the issue and you are being intentionally misleading.
The problem is infections from all diseases borne from insect vectors such as mosquitoes, fleas, and tics. These infections are unquestionably on the rise in the past 10-15 years. The incidence of these diseases has exploded just as climate scientists predicted.
I ask again, is it just find to let global temperatures continue to rise?
Will you continue to argue that you are smarter than the scientific community?
Malaria is by the most deadly mosquito born disease and I don't have data for the other diseases so that's not misleading. You're right that we are getting better at fighting it and will continue to do so. That's why we don't have to worry about the impact of climate change which is miniscule by comparison.
Temperatures are expected to rise even if we halted all CO2 emissions today so whether it's fine or not is irrelevant. The important question is how much of an impact on the temperature do you think we realistically have by 2100?
TTH wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
How much of an impact on the global temperature do you realistically think we can have by 2100? We need an actual cost/benefit analysis not just a bunch of scaremongering.
You remain one dumb mofo.
You forgot your counterarguments.
Hardloper wrote:
TTH wrote:
You remain one dumb mofo.
You forgot your counterarguments.
Ahem, counter-arguments; regardless of what spell-check believes.
You did not provide a salable argument. That is the same as you always do.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are talking about the mortality rate of one specific disease that we are getting better at fighting. You know very well that is not the issue and you are being intentionally misleading.
The problem is infections from all diseases borne from insect vectors such as mosquitoes, fleas, and tics. These infections are unquestionably on the rise in the past 10-15 years. The incidence of these diseases has exploded just as climate scientists predicted.
I ask again, is it just find to let global temperatures continue to rise?
Will you continue to argue that you are smarter than the scientific community?
Malaria is by the most deadly mosquito born disease and I don't have data for the other diseases so that's not misleading. You're right that we are getting better at fighting it and will continue to do so. That's why we don't have to worry about the impact of climate change which is miniscule by comparison.
Temperatures are expected to rise even if we halted all CO2 emissions today so whether it's fine or not is irrelevant. The important question is how much of an impact on the temperature do you think we realistically have by 2100?
It's easy to find the data on other diseases. I guess you didn't look too hard.
Global warming is not irrelevant. The higher the temperature goes, the worse things get. Again, read the Trump administration's report. It's quite devastating.
And yes, global warming will continue even if we were able to eliminate greenhouse gasses today. We will need to spend billions on amelioration of its effects.
The fact is that we need to stop polluting the air and causing global temperatures to rise. Elimination of greenhouse gasses has the biggest payoff. It's a lot cheaper to stop polluting and at least slow global warming than it is to continue dumping garbage into the air and letting global temperatures go through the roof.
The central question is, "Do you support dirty air or clean air?"
Fat hurts wrote:
It's easy to find the data on other diseases. I guess you didn't look too hard.
Global warming is not irrelevant. The higher the temperature goes, the worse things get. Again, read the Trump administration's report. It's quite devastating.
And yes, global warming will continue even if we were able to eliminate greenhouse gasses today. We will need to spend billions on amelioration of its effects.
The fact is that we need to stop polluting the air and causing global temperatures to rise. Elimination of greenhouse gasses has the biggest payoff. It's a lot cheaper to stop polluting and at least slow global warming than it is to continue dumping garbage into the air and letting global temperatures go through the roof.
The central question is, "Do you support dirty air or clean air?"
Forgot to mention, the Al Gore movie referenced malaria specifically so he WAS wrong about that. And if the number of malaria infections and deaths can be significantly reduced despite global warming, so can any other mosquito-borne illness.
This assertion needs some proof to back it up: "It's a lot cheaper to stop polluting and at least slow global warming than it is to continue dumping garbage into the air and letting global temperatures go through the roof." That's the central question.
Besides the fact that global temperatures will continue to rise, there must also be an upper limit to climate change since there's a limited supply of fossil fuels and the market will continue to shift away from them as the supply decreases without any government involvement.
"Do you support dirty or clean air" is not the central question because greenhouse gasses (CO2, water vapor, methane) are different from air pollutants (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide).