• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Weird

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ct-muellers-latest-terms-for-interview-report

President Trump’s legal team in the Russia investigation reportedly rebuffed special counsel Robert Mueller’s conditions for an interview on Wednesday, instead suggesting a more limited line of questioning.

The New York Times reported that attorneys Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani did not completely reject an interview, but instead countered Mueller’s offer with another one of their own. The lawyers did not comment on the specifics of their proposal, but sources told the newspaper that it rules out potential questions about obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

So you can question him, but questions must be about how awesome he is on a scale of 9 to 10, how much bigger his hands are than Lebron James' hands, and if this is the worst witch hunt in the history of witch hunts.
 
Supreme Court would slap down any subpoena. Giuliani knows it and so does Mueller.

They can’t let the buffoon speak. Needs to be written interrogatories.
 
Habsy said:
Supreme Court would slap down any subpoena. Giuliani knows it and so does Mueller.
Click to expand...

Why do we know this? Clinton was successfully subpoenad in the Jones civil suit. What's the argument for a President to not have to respond to a criminal subpoena when the SCOTUS has already ruled that they have to respond to a civil subpoena?

Then there's Nixon, who was compelled by subpoena to turnover documents during the Watergate investigation.

So while this precise question hasn't been answered by SCOTUS, 2 similar questions have been answered and both were losses for the power of the President.

They can’t let the buffoon speak. Needs to be written interrogatories.
Click to expand...

Everyone other than Trump seems to realize this.
 
I would argue there are only a handful of people that can beat Trump in 2020.

Smart people will stay in the private sector creating a small pool.
 
Habsy said:
I would argue there are only a handful of people that can beat Trump in 2020.

Smart people will stay in the private sector creating a small pool.
Click to expand...

There's no obvious choice, that's for sure. After the midterms we'll have a better impression of the exact impact of Trump, and which congressmen/senators will start to plan for a 2020 bid.
 
Altair said:
Lovely.

There are probably only a handful of people who trump can beat in an election, H Clinton being one of them, and Avenatti being another.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't view that as a bad development. Iron sharpens iron. Having a guy up on that stage who is a decent debater, while at the same time isn't beholden to speaking the Democrat way and limiting things to Democrat talking points is good imo.

I'm also not at all convinced that anyone who can sound competent while having a legit spine, can't beat Trump. I feel like I repeat this every time this topic comes up, but a ridiculous confluence of events and circumstances had to come together perfectly for Trump to win a ridiculously narrow victory. It required Russian interference, FBI interference, a scandal ridden (even if they were largely political, tempest in a teapot type scandals, they absolutely has affect on her public appeal) opponent with 30 years of public baggage. Trump has only become less popular since the election as well.
 
Habsy said:
You’re asking a lot in the current political climate. Someone with a spine? Good luck.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It *shouldn't* be hard to find someone to run to beat him, but I'm not sure who that person is. And there's definitely going to be a lot of over-confident democrats who will believe that anyone with a pulse can beat Trump, which could be a problem when it comes to the primaries. They need to be smart enough to still push for a top tier candidate and not rest on their laurels.
 
Habsy said:
I would argue there are only a handful of people that can beat Trump in 2020.

Smart people will stay in the private sector creating a small pool.
Click to expand...

The Democrats will no doubt run out a candidate that cannot win in the swing states and then will complain that racism cost them.

I know you should not choose candidates based skin colour, race, religion, sex, etc (as basically everyone here agrees) but not everyone who votes is as progressive. Many want to vote for someone who looks like them, talks like them etc.

Running a black woman from California, even if she is the best possible candidate, might not sell in rural Penn, Wisconsin, Michigan etc. The Democrats have not run a white male for President in what will be 16 years. They ran very good candidates (well one good and one bad as she was the only person who could have lost to Dump) and won two elections but now they are falling behind. I highly doubt the US will vote for someone like Harris for President. Many had trouble with a black man running for President, how will they accept a black woman?

The Democrats keep running out the same old guard as there are really no young people high in leadership. That has to change. Even Pelosi said she will not run for House leader again and they need someone younger.
 
UWHabs said:
Yeah. It *shouldn't* be hard to find someone to run to beat him, but I'm not sure who that person is. And there's definitely going to be a lot of over-confident democrats who will believe that anyone with a pulse can beat Trump, which could be a problem when it comes to the primaries. They need to be smart enough to still push for a top tier candidate and not rest on their laurels.
Click to expand...

they thought that in 2016 as well. Basically Hilary's campaign was "I'm not him"
 
They’ll make that same mistake again.

Reasonable people want to know what a candidate is for... not against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top