• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Flynn isn't throwing anyone under the bus yet. If FBI flipped him you would not be hearing it in a statement from his lawyer.

Fishing for an Ollie North deal is most likely at this point, it would be "funny" if Nunes could unilaterally offer such a thing for some empty testimony.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
sc0la said:
Flynn isn't throwing anyone under the bus yet. If FBI flipped him you would not be hearing it in a statement from his lawyer.

Fishing for an Ollie North deal is most likely at this point, it would be "funny" if Nunes could unilaterally offer such a thing for some empty testimony.
Click to expand...
Oliver North's plea doesnt work if FBI doesnt want it, and it seems like FBI doesnt want it:

But as Whiting also notes, the bad news for Flynn is that the FBI isn’t taking his bait, which means they might have enough on him to preclude a deal. “The Justice Department will tell Congress that a grant of immunity at this stage could compromise its ongoing criminal investigation,” Whiting argues. “Already, statements from the Congressional committees suggest no interest in granting immunity to Flynn. ... And the very fact that Flynn’s lawyer is making a play for immunity at this stage suggests that he has some fear that his client faces real criminal exposure.”

If Whiting’s analysis is right, Flynn may soon be facing a deal set on the FBI’s terms rather than his own.
Click to expand...
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141768/michael-flynns-deal-making-may-backfire
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Flynn has something on the conversations with the ambassador and the calls to russia. I can't imagine that the FBI wouldn't want to know what was said there.

But if they can suss out that info or other crimes he might have committed the FBI will be in a stronger position to demand the terms.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
I'm not sure why it's considered patently absurd that coddling Manchin might cost us votes elsewhere, yet people act like Manchin's reelection was hanging in the balance with the Sessions vote. Honestly both probabilities are very low. I've argued elsewhere (like yesterday) about the importance of letting vulnerable members take some votes you don't like to keep in the good graces of their constituents, particularly when their vote is meaningless. But, that having been said, there are also times when a vote is so strongly based on your party's core values that you really need to put up a united front. Heitkamp and Donnelly held firm on Sessions, why couldn't Manchin? I get letting him vote for a bunch of Trump's cabinet appointments, I don't think Sessions was the time to do that.

Likewise, we are assured that the question of whether Manchin would ever be vote 50(w/VP)/51/60 for anything truly important is just a hypothetical, then are treated to exactly that hypothetical as the reason we need to keep him around. And some of the scenarios thrown around here are really fanciful. The guy who co-sponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment is not voting for single payer, sorry. He's to the left of anyone the Republicans would put up in WV on economic matters, but people assume he's far more to the left on economic issues than he actually is.

But my real point has very little to do with Joe Manchin. I actually do see the arguments that we should keep him around. I'm really more making the abstract point about the limits of a Big Tent. There are certain lines that just aren't worth crossing to win seats. We could probably pick up a couple of rural white House seats by running candidates who combine economic populism with white nationalism. They'd vote with Trump a bunch but perhaps less than a Republican. It wouldn't be worth it because it would make the party look like craven opportunists with no real core beliefs and cost us votes elsewhere. I just wish we could talk about where the limits of a Big Tent should be without it be caricatured as wanting to run Elizabeth Warren in Alabama.

On the specific subject of Manchin I suppose my view would be roughly that we could tolerate him but the leadership should have made clear that he had to take one for the team on the Sessions vote because he is such a threat to core Democratic Party values that we need to present a united front against him, and that there would be consequences (committee assignments, etc.) for breaking ranks. There are plenty of other votes for him to demonstrate his bipartisan bona fides to the voters of West Virginia.
 
S

sangreal

Member
I don't care what Manchin does until we have a majority in the senate -- ie controlling all committees and what bills come to the floor. Minority party votes are largely meaningless, especially as the filibuster continues to be watered down/eliminated

huge downgrade from Byrd though, so I don't believe for a minute he is the best we can do in WV
 
K

kirblar

Member
Because no one outside of WV and very clued in people knows who the F Joe Manchin is.

People are not acting like his election was "hanging in the air", people are saying that he's not a relevant vote and is thus stockpiling "maverick" votes for his VERY red state on metrics where it doesn't matter.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
FloydtheFathead said:
Either
A) Flynn has nothing (which I doubt)
B) They don't need Flynn (which is possible I suppose)
C) They want to nail his ass (which is definitely possible)

They have him dead on lying to the FBI when they interviewed him.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Are we actually going to see him plead the fifth during hearings now? That would be amazing all by itself.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Box of Kittens said:
I'm not sure why it's considered patently absurd that coddling Manchin might cost us votes elsewhere, yet people act like Manchin's reelection was hanging in the balance with the Sessions vote. Honestly both probabilities are very low. I've argued elsewhere (like yesterday) about the importance of letting vulnerable members take some votes you don't like to keep in the good graces of their constituents, particularly when their vote is meaningless. But, that having been said, there are also times when a vote is so strongly based on your party's core values that you really need to put up a united front. Heitkamp and Donnelly held firm on Sessions, why couldn't Manchin? I get letting him vote for a bunch of Trump's cabinet appointments, I don't think Sessions was the time to do that.

Likewise, we are assured that the question of whether Manchin would ever be vote 50(w/VP)/51/60 for anything truly important is just a hypothetical, then are treated to exactly that hypothetical as the reason we need to keep him around. And some of the scenarios thrown around here are really fanciful. The guy who co-sponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment is not voting for single payer, sorry. He's to the left of anyone the Republicans would put up in WV on economic matters, but people assume he's far more to the left on economic issues than he actually is.

But my real point has very little to do with Joe Manchin. I actually do see the arguments that we should keep him around. I'm really more making the abstract point about the limits of a Big Tent. There are certain lines that just aren't worth crossing to win seats. We could probably pick up a couple of rural white House seats by running candidates who combine economic populism with white nationalism. They'd vote with Trump a bunch but perhaps less than a Republican. It wouldn't be worth it because it would make the party look like craven opportunists with no real core beliefs and cost us votes elsewhere. I just wish we could talk about where the limits of a Big Tent should be without it be caricatured as wanting to run Elizabeth Warren in Alabama.

On the specific subject of Manchin I suppose my view would be roughly that we could tolerate him but the leadership should have made clear that he had to take one for the team on the Sessions vote because he is such a threat to core Democratic Party values that we need to present a united front against him, and that there would be consequences (committee assignments, etc.) for breaking ranks. There are plenty of other votes for him to demonstrate his bipartisan bona fides to the voters of West Virginia.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care all that much since I don't live in WV, but my overall point is that I suspect if we lose the WV seat in the future because we didn't like someone's meaningless Cabinet vote a lot of the people (perhaps you included) will be moaning if we don't take the Senate by that one seat next year, however unlikely TX is. Basically I don't wanna hear any whining if that situation happens.

As for his positions on things, I think he's further left than Lieberman was, and that extra edge gives us a public option (I don't even really want single payer since I think a PO is more palatable and therefore easier to get done).

As a person who lives in a massively red state with actual white nationalists (another reason I'm a bit testy as "voted meaninglessly for Jeff Sessions makes you a white nationalist" irritates me as someone who lives in a state with tons of hardcore, gun-carrying, holy war-starting Klansmen, so the equivalence there doesn't really work for me), I'd kill to have Manchin instead of Wicker or Cochran. Maybe I'd feel differently if I lived in a purple or blue state, but I don't. The lack of people like Manchin winning here actively affects me very strongly; if I could get a Manchin to get the Medicaid expansion here, I'd be in tears from happiness.
 
B

Blader

Member
BlastProcessing said:
That's pretty big news. Feels like Burr is pretty close to going on Trump's Twitter shit list.
Click to expand...

Burr is a Trump supporter, but he was also just elected and has said this is his last term, so he probably doesn't fear any electoral reprisals the way Nunes does/will. His hands are also probably much cleaner than Nunes'.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Obama Officials Made List of Russia Probe Documents To Keep Them Safe

Obama administration officials were so concerned about what would happen to key classified documents related to the Russia probe once President Trump took office that they created a list of document serial numbers to give to senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a former Obama official told NBC News.

The official said that after the list of documents related to the probe into Russian interference in the U.S. election was created in early January, he hand-carried it to the committee members. The numbers themselves were not classified, said the official.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ts-keep-them-safe-n741146?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

Obama with that 4D chess.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
kirblar said:
Because no one outside of WV and very clued in people knows who the F Joe Manchin is.

People are not acting like his election was "hanging in the air", people are saying that he's not a relevant vote and is thus stockpiling "maverick" votes for his VERY red state on metrics where it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying leadership should let him stockpile "maverick" votes, but Sessions shouldn't have been one of those votes. If Donnelly and Heitkamp could vote against him, so could Manchin. I think the value of presenting a united front against Sessions (even knowing it wouldn't stop him) was enough in terms of what it signals about the values of our party to spend some political capital on.

And again my point isn't even about Manchin all that much, just that we should acknowledge that there is a point where we need to draw the line about how big the tent is because at some point it does start costing us votes (among other reasons), and acknowledging that doesn't mean you are advocating a one-size fits all strategy for running candidates. I even said that, given just a little more party discipline, Manchin probably falls on the right side of that line, just that we should (1) acknowledge that there is such a line and (2) be willing to debate where that line falls.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
smokeymicpot said:
The official said that after the list of documents related to the probe into Russian interference in the U.S. election was created in early January, he hand-carried it to the committee members. The numbers themselves were not classified, said the official.
Click to expand...
I originally read this as Obama hand delivering them to the officials. And thought that was badass. "Here, I trust you'll use this when the time is right" in Obama's voice.

But they meant the aide hand carried it and it was less cool.
 
O

Ourobolus

Banned
smokeymicpot said:
Obama Officials Made List of Russia Probe Documents To Keep Them Safe

Obama administration officials were so concerned about what would happen to key classified documents related to the Russia probe once President Trump took office that they created a list of document serial numbers to give to senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a former Obama official told NBC News.

The official said that after the list of documents related to the probe into Russian interference in the U.S. election was created in early January, he hand-carried it to the committee members. The numbers themselves were not classified, said the official.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ts-keep-them-safe-n741146?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

Obama with that 4D chess.
Click to expand...

They also made copies of documents that they felt were relevant and circulated them to the various agencies so that no one agency could destroy them, IIRC
 
A

adamsappel

Member
ShadowSwordmaster said:
Red states are getting into renewable energies lately. That might not be the reason, but it is the only one I can think of.
Click to expand...
The biggest surprise I had driving through Texas was the sheer number of wind farms. Thousands of windmill turbines.

royalan said:
Chuck Schumer reads an opposition statement like he's reading the menu aloud at a Dennys.

I think that the Russia angle could be an effective attack, but Democrats are just piss-poor at pushing a message.

I don't think the issue here is exactly which message is the winning one. It's Democrats consistently failing at getting behind a message and pushing it passionately.
Click to expand...
Yet another reason to be mad at Anthony Weiner. He would have been incredible at angry speeches about this. Did it ever turn out that the last young girl he was sexting was a Russian operation?

Carpe Libertatem said:
I'm kind of surprised Shelley Moore-Capito didn't do it

Looking at her recent record it looks like she took a hard turn right on abortion rights after winning election to the Senate. She was pretty pro-choice for a Republican when she was in the House

I'd almost take her over Manchin fwiw
Click to expand...

She's worse. I was friends with Natalie Tennant in college; it would have been great if she'd won the election, she'd have been a real progressive voice in the Senate, but Capito destroyed her. We're just not going to see liberal politicians in West Virginia. They're lucky to get DINOs.

neurosisxeno said:
Okay, maybe fuck Joe Manchin a little bit. But Byrd was kind of a monolith in the Senate. One does not spend 51 years in the Senate without being pretty beloved by their constituents. I think him being a former KKK member definitely makes him quite shitty, but I imagine he's probably quite beloved in West Virginia, and there's no way Manchin wins if he goes up there and says "Robert Byrd? More like Shit Byrd am I right?"
Click to expand...

I was raised by hippies in West Virginia. Even they explained to me that you didn't ascend in WV politics without Klan ties. Byrd made his penance and ended up on the right side of history. And no, you don't talk shit about Byrd there. Even if you dismiss him for the past racism and dislike long tenures in the Senate, he was a great senator for West Virginia. Honestly, if the senate went back to pork-barrel politicking, it would function much better.

Wilsongt said:
You're on a roll the last couple of days.
Click to expand...
For a while there, "Diablosing" took on a different meaning and even transferred to a different poster. Time is a flat circle.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
royalan said:
Chuck Schumer reads an opposition statement like he's reading the menu aloud at a Dennys.

I think that the Russia angle could be an effective attack, but Democrats are just piss-poor at pushing a message.

I don't think the issue here is exactly which message is the winning one. It's Democrats consistently failing at getting behind a message and pushing it passionately.
Click to expand...

Hey, that man takes his diner menus serious. Have you ever seen his diner tips? Transcendent.

adamsappel said:
I was raised by hippies in West Virginia. Even they explained to me that you didn't ascend in WV politics without Klan ties. Byrd made his penance and ended up on the right side of history. And no, you don't talk shit about Byrd there. Even if you dismiss him for the past racism and dislike long tenures in the Senate, he was a great senator for West Virginia. Honestly, if the senate went back to pork-barrel politicking, it would function much better.
Click to expand...

Ironically the end of pork made Congress a lot more polarized. The whole thing made it harder to justify votes that your constituents may not like. Back then you vote with the Dems on healthcare and you justify it by saying your state got a new research lab or a bridge out of the deal, now you just get killed in reelection if they don't see the benefits fast enough.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
tbm24 said:
Really the main question to be asked at this point if that's going to be everyone's red line for WV is whether or not his constituency has a problem with Jeff sessions to begin with.
Click to expand...

That is a question you answer with a primary election.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
AntraxSuicide said:
You're comparing Steve King to Joe Manchin. Either you aren't being honest or that's an awful comparison! Maybe get out and meet some people like Steve King; they protest around here with guns and banners that talk about racial holy wars, which according to you, is a Manchin pastime.
Click to expand...

I mean, I think you're the one who doesn't want to have a real conversation. I actually didn't say that Manchin was a white nationalist, specifically to avoid the fight over definitions that immediately results when people want to defend their moral choice. I specified that he voted for Sessions, which is just factual. Maybe the problem is just that you're not reading my posts and attributing stuff to me I'm not saying.

The comparison to Steve King was an intentionally absurd comparison to make a specific point, which indeed came up later: if your argument is that Manchin is fine because you think he can be whipped on a few key votes (not related to race) and will vote for Schumer to run the chamber...that applies to absolutely anybody willing to call themselves a Democrat. By that argument, yes, Steve King should be fine.

Now I agree that nobody actually thinks King would be fine as a Dem. The comparison is absurd. But the reason people don't think King is fine as a Dem is that the argument they keep putting forward -- all that matters about Manchin is that he's a vote in the chamber -- is not really what they think. It matters to them that King has a repulsive ideology. And it should!

So there's an ideological barrier as well as a voting one. When people say that Manchin is fine they just mean they don't think Manchin's ideology is too extreme for the Democratic Party. That's the topic we should actually be discussing about Manchin, not truisms about how votes are good and West Virginia is racist.

Also, I'm assuming that if Manchin were to get primaried and we lose his seat, you'll never bitch if we try to pass legislation and fail by one vote? Because that would be the height of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Eh, like I said, I think Manchin loses anyway. If there's any state where Dems are fucked in the age of Trump, it's WV. So no. Contrariwise, if Manchin doesn't lose his primary but still loses his seat, are you planning to admit that I was right all along and that compromising with racism was a dumb idea?
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
If anyone wants to infuriate themselves into a coma, here is The Atlantic's interview with Chaffetz The Prince of Oversight

Some hot quotes:

“Look, I think I went through a lot of the gyrations that people in Utah and across the country [did],” he said in a recent interview. But in the end, he told me, the voters made the right decision. “I can’t imagine what the world would look like if Hillary Clinton were the president right now. I mean—” he paused and searched for a way to adequately express his disgust at the thought, before settling on a guttural gagging sound. “Blech.”
Click to expand...

I asked Chaffetz if he was concerned about Trump reaping financial rewards from his presidency, but he just shrugged.

“He’s already rich,” Chaffetz said. “He’s very rich. I don’t think that he ran for this office to line his pockets even more. I just don’t see it like that.”

What about the recent New York Times story about Jared Kushner’s family exploring a $400 million deal with a Chinese company while he serves as a foreign policy adviser to the president—was that worthy of investigation?

“I don’t see how that affects the average American and their taxpayer dollars,” Chaffetz said. “Just the fact that a staff person’s family is making money? It’s not enough.”
He promised that Trump won’t get an entirely free ride under his watch. “Somebody’ll do something stupid at some point, and we’ll be all over it.” But, he added, “I think the people who voted for Donald Trump went into it with eyes wide open. Everybody knew he was rich, everybody knew he had lots of different entanglements … These other little intrigues about a wealthy family making money is a bit of a sideshow.”
Click to expand...

One issue Chaffetz is in no hurry to tackle is Russia’s alleged interference with the 2016 election. Despite noisy calls from some constituents back home to open an investigation, Chaffetz said he didn’t believe it was his job. “It’s not breaking news that Russia has engaged in espionage against our government, our elections, or corporate America,” he told me. He said he would would play “a supporting role” for the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation—and then couldn’t resist adding, “How quickly the democrats forget that it was Mitt Romney that pointed out our biggest geopolitical foe was Russia.”
Click to expand...

There's a whole lot more, if you can suppress your stomach acid, it's worth reading.
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Thanks Manchin and McCaskill you just became a Trump talking point.

wow...this EO is such shit. bad enough you got laidoff, now you have to get drug tested???
 
B

Blader

Member
BlastProcessing said:
If anyone wants to infuriate themselves into a coma, here is The Atlantic's interview with Chaffetz The Prince of Oversight

Some hot quotes:







There's a whole lot more, if you can suppress your stomach acid, it's worth reading.
Click to expand...

I read this earlier, fucking ridiculous. Like this shit:

“He’s already rich,” Chaffetz said. “He’s very rich. I don’t think that he ran for this office to line his pockets even more. I just don’t see it like that.”

What about the recent New York Times story about Jared Kushner’s family exploring a $400 million deal with a Chinese company while he serves as a foreign policy adviser to the president—was that worthy of investigation?

“I don’t see how that affects the average American and their taxpayer dollars,” Chaffetz said. “Just the fact that a staff person’s family is making money? It’s not enough.”
Click to expand...

Why the fuck did the interviewer not ask whether he would feel that under a Clinton administration?!
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
BlastProcessing said:
If anyone wants to infuriate themselves into a coma, here is The Atlantic's interview with Chaffetz The Prince of Oversight

Some hot quotes:







There's a whole lot more, if you can suppress your stomach acid, it's worth reading.
Click to expand...

And Chaffetz overtakes Ryan as the worst person in Washington. What a consistently close battle!
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
They really want his rating to drop even more.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...nt-contacts-colorado-officials-about-cannabis

Trump And Marijuana: Justice Department Contacts Colorado Officials About Cannabis Cases


President Donald Trump’s aides have publicly promised a crackdown on states that have legalized marijuana — and the new White House administration may already be taking steps to make good on that pledge, according to an email obtained by International Business Times.

The correspondence showed a Justice Department official requesting information about marijuana cases from the state Attorney General’s office in Colorado — one of five states where voters have passed ballot measures to legalize the recreational use of cannabis. The email came just after both a top White House official and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions reiterated the Trump administration’s opposition to marijuana legalization at the state level.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
SexyFish said:
Lol, Spicer making it seem like fucking Flynn asking for immunity is just him wanting to get the story out.

Fuck off.
Click to expand...
The Trump White House is doing everything it can to get to the bottom of this, and they're being incredibly open!
 
O

Owzers

Member
Dan said:
The Trump White House is doing everything it can to get to the bottom of this, and they're being incredibly open!
Click to expand...
Nothing says open like denying Russia was involved in the hacking to begin with.

Acosta, what have you done. You can't let Spicer get away with this...
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
LOL, Spicer trying to attack people for discussing the changing timeline of Trump's allegations rather than the substance. We can't discuss the substance because you won't release anything!
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
Dan said:
LOL, Spicer trying to attack people for discussing the changing timeline of Trump's allegations rather than the substance. We can't discuss the substance because you won't release anything!
Click to expand...

'It's not the leak, it's the leakers!'*
'It's not the leakers, it's the leak!'*
'It's not the timeline, it's both the above!'

*Stance on either subject to change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
63K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
3K
SturokBGD replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
4K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom