Romney wasn't in the Senate until last year, but did take very public positions opposing the ACA earlier. From his Wiki article:
Immediately following the March 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Romney attacked the landmark legislation as "an unconscionable abuse of power" and said the act should be repealed. The antipathy Republicans felt for it created a potential problem for the former governor, since the new federal law was in many ways similar to the Massachusetts health care reform passed during Romney's gubernatorial tenure; as one Associated Press article stated, "Obamacare ... looks a lot like Romneycare."
And then during the 2012 campaign:
Romney pledged to lead an effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") and replace it with a system that gives states more control over Medicaid and makes health insurance premiums tax-advantaged for individuals in the same way they are for businesses.
Hang about... doesn't that mean he wasn't there for the ACA stuff either, when McCain saved the day?
Romney wasn’t a Senator during that particular vote, but I haven’t kept track of all Senate votes on the ACA. It wouldn’t surprise me if Romney had voted against the ACA on some other occasion. The main difference is that during Romney’s entire Senate tenure (so far) there has been a Democratic majority in the House, rendering any Senate votes to repeal the ACA purely symbolic.
The interesting thing is that the Affordable Care Act patterned after the Health Care Reform Act Romney had made into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. in 2006.
In other words, Obamacare was a Republican program.
Which is interesting, given that he signed into law, while governor of Massachusetts, what has been hailed as the Obamacare precursor.
Yes, Romney signed into law a program similar to Obamacare which passed both houses of the state legislature with veto-proof majorities, a bill he personally devoted very little time to. I don’t think that counts as support, it’s more like not getting into a pointless pissing match with the legislature that you’re doomed to lose.
Which is interesting, given that he signed into law, while governor of Massachusetts, what has been hailed as the Obamacare precursor.
Yes, Romney signed into law a program similar to Obamacare which passed both houses of the state legislature with veto-proof majorities, a bill he personally devoted very little time to. I don’t think that counts as support, it’s more like not getting into a pointless pissing match with the legislature that you’re doomed to lose.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. This NYTimes article from around the time of its passage describes Romney as playing a key role:
Mr. Romney, a Republican and a potential presidential candidate who increasingly emphasizes his conservative bona fides, supplied a template for the bill with some of the most innovative ideas. They include requiring every citizen who can afford health insurance to buy it or face income tax penalties, converting the money in the state's free health care pool into subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance and creating a way for more businesses and individuals to save on insurance by using pretax dollars.
'In the impeachment trial, the 48 Senators who voted to convict represent 18 million more people than the 52 who voted to acquit.'
To paraphrase Gandhi, democracy would be a good idea in America.
'
This is an unfortunate problem of our Federal System. Every state, no matter the number of residents of that state, has two senators, and they have equal status with all the other senators. Thus, Wyoming is as powerful as California in the Senate, and there is a lot of red in the middle of the country.
The Justice Department's door is open if President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, wants to pass along information from Ukraine connected with Joe Biden and his family, Attorney General William Barr said Monday.
Barr was asked during an unrelated press conference about the prospect that Giuliani, who has been at the center of the Ukraine affair, might give information or materials to authorities.
"The DoJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant," Barr said.
Trump seems to be warming up the pardoning pen. Today he's pardoned or commuted the sentences of:
Rod Blagojevich (sentence commuted): Former Democratic Governor of Illinois. He was convicted of corruption stemming from running what was essentially an auction for Barrack Obama's Senate seat, which he vacated when elected president.
Edward DeBartolo, Jr. (pardon): Former owner of the San Francisco '49ers. Convicted of failing to report a felony in riverboat gambling scheme involving bribery.
Bernard Kerick (pardon): Former NYPD police commissioner. Convicted of tax fraud and lying to the government. One-time close associate of Rudy Giuliani. It was revealed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks he mis-appropriated the use of an apartment meant for rescue workers to rest in and used it as a "love nest" for trysts with his mistress.
Michael Milken (pardon): Former junk bond king. Convicted of fraud and insider trading. Close friend of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
My guess is that this is a warm-up for pardoning a bunch of folks with more direct ties to Donald Trump who were convicted of crimes relating to him and may still know incriminating things (Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, etc.). In Trump's mind I'm sure pardoning those guys will look less suspicious if they're part of a larger group of pardons/commutations. It should be noted that of this group only Blagojevich was still imprisoned.
The Justice Department's door is open if President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, wants to pass along information from Ukraine connected with Joe Biden and his family, Attorney General William Barr said Monday.
Barr was asked during an unrelated press conference about the prospect that Giuliani, who has been at the center of the Ukraine affair, might give information or materials to authorities.
"The DoJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant," Barr said.
AG Lynn's department at the time was investigating Hillary Clinton's alleged misuse of a personal internet server for government purposes. Lynn was the AG under Obama.
Bernard Kerick (pardon): Former NYPD police commissioner. Convicted of tax fraud and lying to the government. One-time close associate of Rudy Giuliani. It was revealed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks he mis-appropriated the use of an apartment meant for rescue workers to rest in and used it as a "love nest" for trysts with his mistress.
Wow! Tax fraud, lying to the government, mistresses, friends with Giuliani...he is like a Trump Mini-Me!!
AG Lynn's department at the time was investigating Hillary Clinton's alleged misuse of a personal internet server for government purposes. Lynn was the AG under Obama.
The Department of Justice is investigating Donald Trump (and the Trump Organization) for numerous things, particularly in the Southern District of New York. I'm not sure that Trump's personal attorney having an ex parte backchannel to the Attorney General is different than Bill Clinton having a brief chat with Loretta Lynch. If anything it's a more extreme case.
And I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton meeting with country music singer-songwriter Loretta Lynn would have been much less controversial.
I'm not sure that Trump's personal attorney having an ex parte backchannel to the Attorney General is different than Bill Clinton having a brief chat with Loretta Lynch
I have never seen the term "ex parte" used in this way. It generally refers to communications with a judge, not between lawyers. .
Trump is holding a rally in Phoenix this evening -- ironically at the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Not only is he campaigning for his own re-election, but for the election of the appointed Republican Senator -- Martha McSally, the Republican candidate, who lost the election two years ago and was appointed to finish John McCain's term. I'm delighted to have just read that the Democratic candidate for that Senate seat (former astronaut Mark Kelly) is ahead in the polls.
I'm so sorry that I have to rearrange my sock drawer this evening so I can't attend.
I'm not sure that Trump's personal attorney having an ex parte backchannel to the Attorney General is different than Bill Clinton having a brief chat with Loretta Lynch
I have never seen the term "ex parte" used in this way. It generally refers to communications with a judge, not between lawyers. .
Seems appropriate for someone who is willing to reduce recommended sentences or dismiss charges entirely.
In pardon-related news Julian Assange has claimed (through his lawyers) that Donald Trump offered him a pardon in exchange for denying that the hacked emails distributed by Wikileaks originated from Russia. Now I will admit that there are numerous areas for skepticism on this. For example Dana Rohrbacher (the alleged go-between) may have been misrepresenting Trump's offer, or Assange's attorney may be lying (though if that's the case it's a disbarment-worthy action). On the other hand this is the exact same play the Trump administration* tried to pull on Ukraine, which lends the accusation a certain credibility.
Or Assange's lawyer may be relaying her instructions, which is neither lying nor an offence.
Assange has no credibility.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Nor does Trump. Nor does his so-called press secretary. Not when it comes to truth-telling. The abiding characteristic of this administration is that it lies.
Didn't Assange already "deny" that the e-mails came from Russia? If so, then the way I read it is that Assange is releasing this story as a warning to Trump that if he is not pardoned, he will turn around and disclose that the e-mails did come from Russia---which is what American officials have already concluded.
In an interview with Sean Hannity he was asked: "So in other words, let me be clear...Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"
The Australian founder of the whistleblowing website, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years, responded: "That's correct."
Assange said: "We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all.
"We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out.
"And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party’. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication," he told Hannity.
In other words Assange has said he did not receive the hacked e-mails directly from Russia and hoped that people would interpret that as "Russia did not hack the DNC e-mail system" rather than "Russia hacked the DNC e-mail system and used a third party to pass the hacked e-mails along to Wikileaks", something Assange has never, to the best of my knowledge, confirmed or denied.
40 months sentence on count 1 of the indictment (Obstruction of Proceeding)
12 months each for counts 2 through 6 (False Statements), to be served concurrently with count 1
18 months for count 7 (Witness Tampering), also to be served concurrently
24 months of supervised release after imprisonment
$20,000 fine
I'm sure Trump's twitter feed is going to be lit after this. He was already live-tweeting the sentencing hearing. I guess he doesn't have anything else to do.
Are we laying bets on how soon Roger Stone gets pardoned?
Pardons come with their own problems. Someone who is pardoned cannot then plead the Fifth if they're asked about whatever it is they were convicted of, since they don't have to worry about incriminating themselves. This is one of the reasons that George W. Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence rather than pardoning him.
On the other hand Trump is not big on the subtleties of law and with Bill Barr running the Justice Department the chances of anyone asking Stone questions under oath is minimal. Still I anticipate Trump letting Stone twist in the wind for a little while at least, because that's just how Trump is.
Don trump will soon move on to pardon serial killers was a bad joke. Made worse by the suggestion of the ethnicity of their victims being the important factor.
Surly in this case those who are pardoned by Trump are now owned by Trump, body and soul. They may be out of prison but are they free? Are they not Trump puppets now?
Well, Rob Blagoievich (sp?) had his sentence commuted, IIRC. Democrat though he was, he's now proclaimed himself a Trumper. ("Trumpocrat"?)
TBH, I thought his conviction was probably unfair: he most likely was pulling the same shenanigans as other politicians, playing the game the way it's played. He just got caught--and, IIRC, that was partly because he talked about it.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Blagojevich's pardon is intended to show even handed mercy to political crooks. Except Hillary of course. Crooked Blagojevich! Let him out! Not exactly consistent.
Well, Rob Blagoievich (sp?) had his sentence commuted, IIRC. Democrat though he was, he's now proclaimed himself a Trumper. ("Trumpocrat"?)
TBH, I thought his conviction was probably unfair: he most likely was pulling the same shenanigans as other politicians, playing the game the way it's played. He just got caught--and, IIRC, that was partly because he talked about it.
What? Are you insinuating there might be dirty politics in Chicago???
How does Jury selection work in these types of cases, given that Trump is alleging a tainted jury?
Federal jurors are selected from people on the voter rolls or driver's license (or other state ID) lists in whatever federal district the court operates within. Potential jurors can be dismissed for interest (they have some personal interest in the outcome of the case that could potentially bias them) and each side gets a certain number of "peremptory strikes" where they can have a potential juror dismissed for any reason (or no reason) at all. In federal non-capital felony cases like Stone's the defense gets ten peremptory strikes and the prosecution gets six.
The specifics of the objection being raised is that the jury forewoman was a black woman (their real objection) who once ran for Congress as a Democrat (their claimed objection). It's arguable that this may indicate interest, but this fact was disclosed during the jury selection process and Stone's defense had a chance to question her about it and could have raised an objection then, or even used one of their peremptory strikes. For obvious reasons raising objections about certain jurors after sentence has been handed down, rather than during the jury selection process, is problematic for a number of reasons, both pragmatic and philosophical. Courts are sometimes willing to do this for undisclosed information that comes to light after the fact. For something disclosed during jury selection it's more of a desperation tactic.
TBH, I thought [ Blagojevich's ] conviction was probably unfair: he most likely was pulling the same shenanigans as other politicians, playing the game the way it's played. He just got caught--and, IIRC, that was partly because he talked about it.
There are many criminal justice systems that are lenient on crime. The U.S. is not one of them. This amounts to an argument that the rich and well-connected not only do get exempted from such a system but also that they should be exempted from the draconian system ordinary Americans have to deal with. I find that truly disgusting.
I also think this kind of "everybody does it" thinking is a type of reflexive mindlessness masquerading as cynicism. Saves you the trouble of having to evaluate each case on its merits. It's a lot simpler to just assume that Martha McSally bribed Doug Ducey to appoint her to the U.S. Senate (because all appointed Senators got their appointments through bribery, apparently) than have to actually prove that's the case with evidence.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Proving with evidence seems to have gone out of fashion in favour of " there's no smoke without fire" (crooked Hillary on the one hand) and "prosecutorial and judicial bias" (Stone on the other).
Cynicism and truth manipulation are on the increase.
Well, Rob Blagoievich (sp?) had his sentence commuted, IIRC. Democrat though he was, he's now proclaimed himself a Trumper. ("Trumpocrat"?)
TBH, I thought his conviction was probably unfair: he most likely was pulling the same shenanigans as other politicians, playing the game the way it's played. He just got caught--and, IIRC, that was partly because he talked about it.
What? Are you insinuating there might be dirty politics in Chicago???
Heaven forfend! In Springfield, natch, since RB was governor.
(Not that San Francisco--or California--ever do dirty politics themselves...)
That's roughly how it works here too, which begs the question of why Stone's lawyers chose not to exclude someone so obviously involved in Democratic politics. It leads to the suspicion that they intended to use her presence to discredit the process after, inevitably, he was convicted.
FWIW: I did not say that what RB was good, or that politicians are such special creatures that the law shouldn't apply to them.
I'm a pragmatist. I've heard a zillion times about major and minor political scandals, proto-scandals, rumors, fictionalized accounts of real happenings, etc., etc. Plus the necessity of Big Money, deals, and connections to run for and stay in office. So I'm not generally scandalized by deals made in ye olde smoke-filled backrooms. AIUI, that's the way the actual (not ideal or aspirational) system seems to work. Not should, but does.
I doubt that many, if any, people can get into politics with clean hands and keep them clean beyond the local level--and possibly not even then.
So I tend to be more concerned about what a given politician does for and to their constituents, and whether they abuse anyone.
At the time RB got into trouble and throughout the trial, IIRC, I thought he had done something that was probably pretty common, and I possibly had some input from media reports and analysis.
Note: I'm not sure what in your post is addressed to me specifically, and how much is a Purgatorial rant about something that matters very much to you.
But I'm not reflexively mindless. And I try not to just assume that someone's guilty (or not). Of course, evidence is important. I do tend to think that if all politicians who've gotten/given any kind of improper money, influence, favors, gifts, vacations masquerading as political junkets, etc., large or small, were arrested...I think much of every level of gov't would be shut down indefinitely.
I don't see much point in doing that. I'm not even interested in putting *T* on trial and into prison. I just want him legally and non-violently out of office, preferably getting a whole bunch of treatment and help.
FWIW: I did not say that what RB was good, or that politicians are such special creatures that the law shouldn't apply to them.
<snip>
I do tend to think that if all politicians who've gotten/given any kind of improper money, influence, favors, gifts, vacations masquerading as political junkets, etc., large or small, were arrested...I think much of every level of gov't would be shut down indefinitely.
I don't see much point in doing that.
Your claim that you think that the law should apply to politicians is undercut by your assertion that we shouldn't apply the law to politicians. Bribery is a crime, as is soliciting a bribe.
I'm a pragmatist. I've heard a zillion times about major and minor political scandals, proto-scandals, rumors, fictionalized accounts of real happenings, etc., etc. Plus the necessity of Big Money, deals, and connections to run for and stay in office. So I'm not generally scandalized by deals made in ye olde smoke-filled backrooms. AIUI, that's the way the actual (not ideal or aspirational) system seems to work. Not should, but does.
There may be influence peddling, horse trading, and other vaguely-corrupt-but-still-legal goings on in various levels of U.S. government, but old-style "leave a bag of money on my desk" type corruption of the sort Blagojevich engaged in has become fairly uncommon. Or at least it was until the Trump administration*.
Note: I'm not sure what in your post is addressed to me specifically, and how much is a Purgatorial rant about something that matters very much to you.
This is Purgatory so naturally I was addressing your argument, not you personally. Your appalling argument that bribery isn't something anyone should worry their pretty little heads about.
I'm not even interested in putting *T* on trial and into prison. I just want him legally and non-violently out of office, preferably getting a whole bunch of treatment and help.
Several decades ago Last month Donald Trump said he was going to send more U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a billion dollars. He said that the money had already been deposited but no one else in the government seemed to know anything about this, raising the possibility that the Saudis had simply handed over a billion dollars to Trump's personal bank account to hire the U.S. Army as mercenaries. Leaving aside the fact that Trump was almost certainly lying (because he was talking), if the facts were as he claimed you seem like you'd have no problem with sending American troops to fight someone else's war in exchange for a personal bribe to the president*.
That's how presidents* like Donald Trump happen, an approving, even admiring, attitude towards corruption and bribery masquerading as "pragmatism". It's how no one bats an eye at foreign governments putting money into his pocket through his business. (Remember when Jimmy Carter had to sell his family farm when he became president?)
I'm a pragmatist. I've heard a zillion times about major and minor political scandals, proto-scandals, rumors, fictionalized accounts of real happenings, etc., etc. Plus the necessity of Big Money, deals, and connections to run for and stay in office. So I'm not generally scandalized by deals made in ye olde smoke-filled backrooms. AIUI, that's the way the actual (not ideal or aspirational) system seems to work. Not should, but does.
The problem it seems to me is that the more one accepts that this is how the system works the more behaviour that was previously beyond the pale becomes acceptable.
It becomes less obvious why one should object to Trump if one thinks that Romney or Bush or Clinton or Obama or Sanders are all unprincipled.
There's a psychological effect whereby campaigns to stop littering can encourage littering by spreading the idea that most people do drop litter.
If you want things to change for the better one starts I think by assuming that things can be better, ought to be better, and indeed one wants to spread the idea, as in the littering example above, that things are already a bit better than they actually are.
{Note: all examples, illustrations, and tall tales are fiction pulled from the remainder pile at Jughead's Books 'n' Stuff, in the shed behind his Gas & Gunk station. As such, they may have gently-"foxed" edges, redaction stripes, coffee spills, and mouse nibbles. No warranty should be assumed. Oh, and there's free lemonade and snacks inside the station.}
Various:
--Dafyd: Accepting that the system currently works a certain way does not mean that's good, that it should keep on the way it is, that no one should worry about it, etc. If someone's toodling down a back road in their new car, which is supposed to have a special gas tank that never runs out and is attested in the contract; and it suddenly stops, and the gauge shows there's a full tank, but the driver finds there's no gas in the tank...the driver can try to wheedle the gas tank into having gas in it, or sit in the car whispering "I DO believe in gas, I *do*, I *DO*"...
...but that's not going to get the driver home. If they *accept* the situation (not like it or understand it), then they can try to remedy the situation: call the dealer, call Uber, flag down a passing car, look for a landmark and start walking, etc. And call a civil suit lawyer, journalists, and the Federal Trade Commission along the way.
--Dafyd: IMHO, the reasons to object to T are that he's severely, massively, deeply broken in ways that make it impossible for him to function as a human being, let alone prez of the US. Dementia, learning disabilities, childhood abuse & trauma, effects of long-term Minoxodil use, narcissism, etc. That's before considering ethical/moral incapacity; playing footsy with Russia; reported sexual assault and harassment (including of under-aged pageant contestants); governing by erratic tweeting; provoking Iran(?) to bomb an American base, causing brain injury to many US service members...
This guy makes *Dubya* look functional.
--Dafyd: The littering example is interesting. Thx. I'm pondering it. I do think there may be a fine line between saying things are better than they are (so people don't feel so hopeless that they just don't bother), and accidentally giving a message of "things are better than you think, so you don't have to try".
--Croesos: "Your appalling argument that bribery isn't something anyone should worry their pretty little heads about." Nope. Never said it, never meant it.
--I'm not big on incarceration for *anybody*, whatever they've done. I feel sorry for anyone who's incarcerated. Prisons (and some jails) are horrible, violent, dangerous places: rape, beatings, murders; situations so bad (like at Pelican Bay State Prison in California) that inmates are literally driven mad, etc.
For *me*, this is the output of a lot of thinking over a lot of years. I still have a knee-jerk response that so-and-so should be locked up and the key thrown away; but, pretty soon, that's headed off by the thought of what the person will likely go through. I don't have any easy answers. Maybe prison should just be for people who've done horrible, horrible things--and can't or won't stop. Society needs to be protected from them, but that doesn't mean inmates should be caused to suffer. Emphasis should be on rehabilitation, and a Venn diagram overlap between safe society and controlled freedom for the inmates. Other than that, restorative justice, alternative sentencing, restitution, etc.
I'd still like Roger Stone to go up in a wicker man. If you haven't seen the 1973 film, there might be a spoiler in there. I can't remember the story clearly.
--Croesos: "Your appalling argument that bribery isn't something anyone should worry their pretty little heads about." Nope. Never said it, never meant it.
I'm not sure there's any other way to interpret your claim that Blagojevich's conviction was "unfair", not because he was innocent of the charges but because of your (evidence-free) assertion that all other politicians corruptly sell the powers of their office so it's "unfair" to convict Blago just because he got caught.
Trump is widely understood to hold a rather juvenile, simple-minded form of transactional philosophy. It’s basically just a view that “fairness” means anything that might be seen as negative for him or the country must be balanced by something negative about the other party, whether it’s the Democrats, the so-called “deep state” or a foreign country. His trade deals, for instance, aren’t actually about trade as it’s understood in the modern world. He believes that if a country sells the US a certain product it is “unfair” if the US doesn’t sell an equal number of the same product back to them. That’s not how this works. It’s not how any of this works.
Recently, we have seen that he and his henchmen apply this same playground logic to the rule of law. If he or his associates are found guilty of a crime, it means that one of his political enemies must also be found guilty of a crime. Otherwise, the law is unjust.
Kind of the legal version of bothsidesism.
You also took the trouble to single out "politicians" as a class for this particular form of immunity. You didn't bother expanding it further to claim that fraudsters and murderers should never be convicted because sometimes other people get away with fraud or murder.
--I'm not big on incarceration for *anybody*, whatever they've done. I feel sorry for anyone who's incarcerated. Prisons (and some jails) are horrible, violent, dangerous places: rape, beatings, murders; situations so bad (like at Pelican Bay State Prison in California) that inmates are literally driven mad, etc.
Except what you objected to was his "conviction", not his sentence. As I noted, the American justice system is not a system that's particularly geared towards rehabilitation or restorative justice. Objecting to politicians like Blagojevich being subjected to the same draconian system as other Americans seems not just misguided and arrogant, but also counterproductive for someone who claims to favor "rehabilitation, . . . restorative justice, alternative sentencing, restitution, etc." Politicians are the ones most able to enact reforms to the system and giving them assurances that they'll never be subjected to the American criminal justice system as it currently exists removes a huge motivator towards reform.
--Croesos: "Your appalling argument that bribery isn't something anyone should worry their pretty little heads about." Nope. Never said it, never meant it.
I'm not sure there's any other way to interpret your claim that Blagojevich's conviction was "unfair", not because he was innocent of the charges but because of your (evidence-free) assertion that all other politicians corruptly sell the powers of their office so it's "unfair" to convict Blago just because he got caught.
I wanted to refresh my memory a bit, so I skimmed a few things. You might find this perspective interesting:
I never said nor meant that what RB did was good, right, legal, wise, etc. Just that lots of other people were probably doing the same thing. (I may also, when his case first happened, thought that his targeting was mostly about politics, and possibly a way to try to taint Obama--which tainting, per that article, was an issue.)
You also took the trouble to single out "politicians" as a class for this particular form of immunity. You didn't bother expanding it further to claim that fraudsters and murderers should never be convicted because sometimes other people get away with fraud or murder.
Oy vey. Because we were discussing politicians.
(:eyeroll:)
--I'm not big on incarceration for *anybody*, whatever they've done. I feel sorry for anyone who's incarcerated. Prisons (and some jails) are horrible, violent, dangerous places: rape, beatings, murders; situations so bad (like at Pelican Bay State Prison in California) that inmates are literally driven mad, etc.
Except what you objected to was his "conviction", not his sentence. As I noted, the American justice system is not a system that's particularly geared towards rehabilitation or restorative justice. Objecting to politicians like Blagojevich being subjected to the same draconian system as other Americans seems not just misguided and arrogant, but also counterproductive for someone who claims to favor "rehabilitation, . . . restorative justice, alternative sentencing, restitution, etc." Politicians are the ones most able to enact reforms to the system and giving them assurances that they'll never be subjected to the American criminal justice system as it currently exists removes a huge motivator towards reform.
Ok, one more time: I was talking about politicians, and a specific one. I wasn't, at that time, taking on the entire American legal system and its faults. Hence, no comments about its horrors for everyday people. And, frankly, if I were to just let one group off the hook for anything they might've done, my knee-jerk choice would be ordinary people, *not* politicians, not the rich and powerful.
I don't have much faith in the legal system. I don't have much faith in government. I meant it when I said I think few, if any, politicians get very far with clean hands. Given the need for money and connections, that's the way the system works. I hate it. And I feel sorry for people who go into politics wanting to do good and keep their hands clean.
Yes, that needs to change. But a) I don't think arresting politicians, however rightly, is going to do that--the problems are too embedded; b) arresting ALL politicians with unclean hands (to whatever extent) would pretty much shut down the gov't, and replacing them would just wind up as "same song, different verse"; c) things still need to be done in the meantime; and d) even with all the flaws, mistakes, and corruption, gov't still manages to get some good things done.
SO...
pragmatically...
ISTM that we need to work with what we've got. (Until pigs fly, "Adam's flesh & Adam's bone/Sits in Cair Paravel enthroned", and "peace shall come to Canterville".)
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Meanwhile, Trump continues to stake out the ground for pardoning Roger Stone. And A G Barr remains silent about Trump's latest tweet, undermining the judge and the jury forewoman. The attack on separation of powers intensifies. And his support in the country remains stable, maybe even increasing.
I can only conclude that his loyal supporters consider his disruptive and self-serving behaviour to be a good thing. The notion that the GOP was the home of strict constitutionalists seems to have been replaced by idolatry and "winning is everything".
Will Don trump pardon Harvey Weinstein? He's neither a south Korean parasiteŧ and does think sexual assault is okay. It all does make me think that it is time to not stand up when this person comes into a room, to not offer terms of respect to him, to denigrate the presidential office which he holds. The king needs to be subject to constitutional restraint. Except the defective processes within their constitution don't actually allow a president, who is basically king-for-a-term, to be reined in.
It does seem bizarre that a country which didn't like arbitrary power from their king pre-rebellion, decided to have one. It doesn't matter what you call it - president or king - the shoe fits both. It is only a matter of term of office, one for a period of years, one for a period of their life.
Latest indications are Trump is not interested in pardoning Weinstein since he supported Clinton and vowed to do everything he could to stop Trump. Not going to happen.
I found it very Trumpian. For whatever reason David Bernstein was Blagojevich's chosen journalistic mouthpiece to the outside world in the autumn of 2017. This was part of a media push to paint himself as sympathetic in advance of his Supreme Court appeal. The Trumpiest part of the article was this bit:
It bears mentioning that Blagojevich was sentenced as if he had actually pocketed $1.625 million in cash bribes. Most of this amount comes from the $1.5 million in campaign contributions that he was offered by backers of then-Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. if Blagojevich named Jackson to Obama’s old Senate seat. No such contribution was ever made.
This rather forcefully reminded me of Trump's insistence that strongarming Ukraine by withholding Congressionally-mandated aid in exchange for manufacturing a political scandal about Joe Biden shouldn't be held against him because the aid was eventually released without the Ukrainians announcing an investigation. Which is true, because he got caught! So I don't really take the fact that Blagojevich didn't receive all the bribes he solicited before he got caught as a mitigating circumstance.
The whining about other governors who got lesser sentences than Blagojevich is also very Trumpian since it seems to flow from assumptions that all criminal governors are entitled to the same sentence regardless of their crimes.
Yes, that needs to change. But a) I don't think arresting politicians, however rightly, is going to do that--the problems are too embedded; b) arresting ALL politicians with unclean hands (to whatever extent) would pretty much shut down the gov't, and replacing them would just wind up as "same song, different verse"; c) things still need to be done in the meantime; and d) even with all the flaws, mistakes, and corruption, gov't still manages to get some good things done.
I take the opposite view. Rather than saying that the work of government is too important to enforce any standards of behavior, I'd argue that the work of government is so important that anti-corruption standards are critical. Deliberately turning a blind eye to corruption as you suggest just invites further corruption, leading to less of the "good things" getting done.
For those who are interested here's an interview Rod Blagojevich gave to Anderson Cooper where Blagojevich is trying to claim to have been a political prisoner and Cooper calls him on his obvious self-serving lies. For those who don't have eleven minutes to watch the full interview the relevant bits are in this three minute excerpt.
Latest indications are Trump is not interested in pardoning Weinstein since he supported Clinton and vowed to do everything he could to stop Trump. Not going to happen.
So if Weinstein had supported Don trump, trump would have pardoned him?
Comments
The interesting thing is that the Affordable Care Act patterned after the Health Care Reform Act Romney had made into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. in 2006.
In other words, Obamacare was a Republican program.
Yes, Romney signed into law a program similar to Obamacare which passed both houses of the state legislature with veto-proof majorities, a bill he personally devoted very little time to. I don’t think that counts as support, it’s more like not getting into a pointless pissing match with the legislature that you’re doomed to lose.
Nice stat. Mind if I troll with it?
"CPAC Chair: Mitt Romney’s ‘Physical Safety’ Would Be At Risk At Conference" (Yahoo).
This is an unfortunate problem of our Federal System. Every state, no matter the number of residents of that state, has two senators, and they have equal status with all the other senators. Thus, Wyoming is as powerful as California in the Senate, and there is a lot of red in the middle of the country.
But we are a body of UNITED STATES.
Anyone remember way back in the Before Time when various Republicans threw a months-long shit fit because Bill Clinton briefly met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her plane in the summer of 2016?
Trumpian impartiality at work.
Rod Blagojevich (sentence commuted): Former Democratic Governor of Illinois. He was convicted of corruption stemming from running what was essentially an auction for Barrack Obama's Senate seat, which he vacated when elected president.
Edward DeBartolo, Jr. (pardon): Former owner of the San Francisco '49ers. Convicted of failing to report a felony in riverboat gambling scheme involving bribery.
Bernard Kerick (pardon): Former NYPD police commissioner. Convicted of tax fraud and lying to the government. One-time close associate of Rudy Giuliani. It was revealed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks he mis-appropriated the use of an apartment meant for rescue workers to rest in and used it as a "love nest" for trysts with his mistress.
Michael Milken (pardon): Former junk bond king. Convicted of fraud and insider trading. Close friend of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
My guess is that this is a warm-up for pardoning a bunch of folks with more direct ties to Donald Trump who were convicted of crimes relating to him and may still know incriminating things (Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, etc.). In Trump's mind I'm sure pardoning those guys will look less suspicious if they're part of a larger group of pardons/commutations. It should be noted that of this group only Blagojevich was still imprisoned.
AG Lynn's department at the time was investigating Hillary Clinton's alleged misuse of a personal internet server for government purposes. Lynn was the AG under Obama.
The Department of Justice is investigating Donald Trump (and the Trump Organization) for numerous things, particularly in the Southern District of New York. I'm not sure that Trump's personal attorney having an ex parte backchannel to the Attorney General is different than Bill Clinton having a brief chat with Loretta Lynch. If anything it's a more extreme case.
And I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton meeting with country music singer-songwriter Loretta Lynn would have been much less controversial.
I have never seen the term "ex parte" used in this way. It generally refers to communications with a judge, not between lawyers. .
I'm so sorry that I have to rearrange my sock drawer this evening so I can't attend.
Seems appropriate for someone who is willing to reduce recommended sentences or dismiss charges entirely.
In pardon-related news Julian Assange has claimed (through his lawyers) that Donald Trump offered him a pardon in exchange for denying that the hacked emails distributed by Wikileaks originated from Russia. Now I will admit that there are numerous areas for skepticism on this. For example Dana Rohrbacher (the alleged go-between) may have been misrepresenting Trump's offer, or Assange's attorney may be lying (though if that's the case it's a disbarment-worthy action). On the other hand this is the exact same play the Trump administration* tried to pull on Ukraine, which lends the accusation a certain credibility.
Assange has no credibility.
Not quite. Assange has made several carefully parsed statements that he didn't receive the hacked e-mails from Russia, which isn't quite the same thing.
In other words Assange has said he did not receive the hacked e-mails directly from Russia and hoped that people would interpret that as "Russia did not hack the DNC e-mail system" rather than "Russia hacked the DNC e-mail system and used a third party to pass the hacked e-mails along to Wikileaks", something Assange has never, to the best of my knowledge, confirmed or denied.
I'm sure Trump's twitter feed is going to be lit after this. He was already live-tweeting the sentencing hearing. I guess he doesn't have anything else to do.
[ also posted in Hell ]
Pardons come with their own problems. Someone who is pardoned cannot then plead the Fifth if they're asked about whatever it is they were convicted of, since they don't have to worry about incriminating themselves. This is one of the reasons that George W. Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence rather than pardoning him.
On the other hand Trump is not big on the subtleties of law and with Bill Barr running the Justice Department the chances of anyone asking Stone questions under oath is minimal. Still I anticipate Trump letting Stone twist in the wind for a little while at least, because that's just how Trump is.
How does Jury selection work in these types of cases, given that Trump is alleging a tainted jury?
TBH, I thought his conviction was probably unfair: he most likely was pulling the same shenanigans as other politicians, playing the game the way it's played. He just got caught--and, IIRC, that was partly because he talked about it.
What? Are you insinuating there might be dirty politics in Chicago???
Federal jurors are selected from people on the voter rolls or driver's license (or other state ID) lists in whatever federal district the court operates within. Potential jurors can be dismissed for interest (they have some personal interest in the outcome of the case that could potentially bias them) and each side gets a certain number of "peremptory strikes" where they can have a potential juror dismissed for any reason (or no reason) at all. In federal non-capital felony cases like Stone's the defense gets ten peremptory strikes and the prosecution gets six.
The specifics of the objection being raised is that the jury forewoman was a black woman (their real objection) who once ran for Congress as a Democrat (their claimed objection). It's arguable that this may indicate interest, but this fact was disclosed during the jury selection process and Stone's defense had a chance to question her about it and could have raised an objection then, or even used one of their peremptory strikes. For obvious reasons raising objections about certain jurors after sentence has been handed down, rather than during the jury selection process, is problematic for a number of reasons, both pragmatic and philosophical. Courts are sometimes willing to do this for undisclosed information that comes to light after the fact. For something disclosed during jury selection it's more of a desperation tactic.
There are many criminal justice systems that are lenient on crime. The U.S. is not one of them. This amounts to an argument that the rich and well-connected not only do get exempted from such a system but also that they should be exempted from the draconian system ordinary Americans have to deal with. I find that truly disgusting.
I also think this kind of "everybody does it" thinking is a type of reflexive mindlessness masquerading as cynicism. Saves you the trouble of having to evaluate each case on its merits. It's a lot simpler to just assume that Martha McSally bribed Doug Ducey to appoint her to the U.S. Senate (because all appointed Senators got their appointments through bribery, apparently) than have to actually prove that's the case with evidence.
Cynicism and truth manipulation are on the increase.
Heaven forfend! In Springfield, natch, since RB was governor.
(Not that San Francisco--or California--ever do dirty politics themselves...)
O...k...
FWIW: I did not say that what RB was good, or that politicians are such special creatures that the law shouldn't apply to them.
I'm a pragmatist. I've heard a zillion times about major and minor political scandals, proto-scandals, rumors, fictionalized accounts of real happenings, etc., etc. Plus the necessity of Big Money, deals, and connections to run for and stay in office. So I'm not generally scandalized by deals made in ye olde smoke-filled backrooms. AIUI, that's the way the actual (not ideal or aspirational) system seems to work. Not should, but does.
I doubt that many, if any, people can get into politics with clean hands and keep them clean beyond the local level--and possibly not even then.
So I tend to be more concerned about what a given politician does for and to their constituents, and whether they abuse anyone.
At the time RB got into trouble and throughout the trial, IIRC, I thought he had done something that was probably pretty common, and I possibly had some input from media reports and analysis.
Note: I'm not sure what in your post is addressed to me specifically, and how much is a Purgatorial rant about something that matters very much to you.
But I'm not reflexively mindless. And I try not to just assume that someone's guilty (or not). Of course, evidence is important. I do tend to think that if all politicians who've gotten/given any kind of improper money, influence, favors, gifts, vacations masquerading as political junkets, etc., large or small, were arrested...I think much of every level of gov't would be shut down indefinitely.
I don't see much point in doing that. I'm not even interested in putting *T* on trial and into prison. I just want him legally and non-violently out of office, preferably getting a whole bunch of treatment and help.
Your claim that you think that the law should apply to politicians is undercut by your assertion that we shouldn't apply the law to politicians. Bribery is a crime, as is soliciting a bribe.
There may be influence peddling, horse trading, and other vaguely-corrupt-but-still-legal goings on in various levels of U.S. government, but old-style "leave a bag of money on my desk" type corruption of the sort Blagojevich engaged in has become fairly uncommon. Or at least it was until the Trump administration*.
This is Purgatory so naturally I was addressing your argument, not you personally. Your appalling argument that bribery isn't something anyone should worry their pretty little heads about.
Several decades ago Last month Donald Trump said he was going to send more U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a billion dollars. He said that the money had already been deposited but no one else in the government seemed to know anything about this, raising the possibility that the Saudis had simply handed over a billion dollars to Trump's personal bank account to hire the U.S. Army as mercenaries. Leaving aside the fact that Trump was almost certainly lying (because he was talking), if the facts were as he claimed you seem like you'd have no problem with sending American troops to fight someone else's war in exchange for a personal bribe to the president*.
That's how presidents* like Donald Trump happen, an approving, even admiring, attitude towards corruption and bribery masquerading as "pragmatism". It's how no one bats an eye at foreign governments putting money into his pocket through his business. (Remember when Jimmy Carter had to sell his family farm when he became president?)
It becomes less obvious why one should object to Trump if one thinks that Romney or Bush or Clinton or Obama or Sanders are all unprincipled.
There's a psychological effect whereby campaigns to stop littering can encourage littering by spreading the idea that most people do drop litter.
If you want things to change for the better one starts I think by assuming that things can be better, ought to be better, and indeed one wants to spread the idea, as in the littering example above, that things are already a bit better than they actually are.
Various:
--Dafyd: Accepting that the system currently works a certain way does not mean that's good, that it should keep on the way it is, that no one should worry about it, etc. If someone's toodling down a back road in their new car, which is supposed to have a special gas tank that never runs out and is attested in the contract; and it suddenly stops, and the gauge shows there's a full tank, but the driver finds there's no gas in the tank...the driver can try to wheedle the gas tank into having gas in it, or sit in the car whispering "I DO believe in gas, I *do*, I *DO*"...
...but that's not going to get the driver home. If they *accept* the situation (not like it or understand it), then they can try to remedy the situation: call the dealer, call Uber, flag down a passing car, look for a landmark and start walking, etc. And call a civil suit lawyer, journalists, and the Federal Trade Commission along the way.
--Dafyd: IMHO, the reasons to object to T are that he's severely, massively, deeply broken in ways that make it impossible for him to function as a human being, let alone prez of the US. Dementia, learning disabilities, childhood abuse & trauma, effects of long-term Minoxodil use, narcissism, etc. That's before considering ethical/moral incapacity; playing footsy with Russia; reported sexual assault and harassment (including of under-aged pageant contestants); governing by erratic tweeting; provoking Iran(?) to bomb an American base, causing brain injury to many US service members...
This guy makes *Dubya* look functional.
--Dafyd: The littering example is interesting. Thx. I'm pondering it. I do think there may be a fine line between saying things are better than they are (so people don't feel so hopeless that they just don't bother), and accidentally giving a message of "things are better than you think, so you don't have to try".
--Croesos: "Your appalling argument that bribery isn't something anyone should worry their pretty little heads about." Nope. Never said it, never meant it.
--I'm not big on incarceration for *anybody*, whatever they've done. I feel sorry for anyone who's incarcerated. Prisons (and some jails) are horrible, violent, dangerous places: rape, beatings, murders; situations so bad (like at Pelican Bay State Prison in California) that inmates are literally driven mad, etc.
For *me*, this is the output of a lot of thinking over a lot of years. I still have a knee-jerk response that so-and-so should be locked up and the key thrown away; but, pretty soon, that's headed off by the thought of what the person will likely go through. I don't have any easy answers. Maybe prison should just be for people who've done horrible, horrible things--and can't or won't stop. Society needs to be protected from them, but that doesn't mean inmates should be caused to suffer. Emphasis should be on rehabilitation, and a Venn diagram overlap between safe society and controlled freedom for the inmates. Other than that, restorative justice, alternative sentencing, restitution, etc.
I'm not sure there's any other way to interpret your claim that Blagojevich's conviction was "unfair", not because he was innocent of the charges but because of your (evidence-free) assertion that all other politicians corruptly sell the powers of their office so it's "unfair" to convict Blago just because he got caught.
To bring this back to Donald Trump, this is a very Trumpian idea of fairness:
Kind of the legal version of bothsidesism.
You also took the trouble to single out "politicians" as a class for this particular form of immunity. You didn't bother expanding it further to claim that fraudsters and murderers should never be convicted because sometimes other people get away with fraud or murder.
Except what you objected to was his "conviction", not his sentence. As I noted, the American justice system is not a system that's particularly geared towards rehabilitation or restorative justice. Objecting to politicians like Blagojevich being subjected to the same draconian system as other Americans seems not just misguided and arrogant, but also counterproductive for someone who claims to favor "rehabilitation, . . . restorative justice, alternative sentencing, restitution, etc." Politicians are the ones most able to enact reforms to the system and giving them assurances that they'll never be subjected to the American criminal justice system as it currently exists removes a huge motivator towards reform.
I wanted to refresh my memory a bit, so I skimmed a few things. You might find this perspective interesting:
"Rod Blagojevich Is Asking for Mercy. His Case Is Stronger Than You Might Think. The Illinois governor seemed like the ultimate political crook. But some legal experts are not so sure anymore." (Politico, 11/2/2017).
I never said nor meant that what RB did was good, right, legal, wise, etc. Just that lots of other people were probably doing the same thing. (I may also, when his case first happened, thought that his targeting was mostly about politics, and possibly a way to try to taint Obama--which tainting, per that article, was an issue.)
Oy vey. Because we were discussing politicians.
(:eyeroll:)
Ok, one more time: I was talking about politicians, and a specific one. I wasn't, at that time, taking on the entire American legal system and its faults. Hence, no comments about its horrors for everyday people. And, frankly, if I were to just let one group off the hook for anything they might've done, my knee-jerk choice would be ordinary people, *not* politicians, not the rich and powerful.
I don't have much faith in the legal system. I don't have much faith in government. I meant it when I said I think few, if any, politicians get very far with clean hands. Given the need for money and connections, that's the way the system works. I hate it. And I feel sorry for people who go into politics wanting to do good and keep their hands clean.
Yes, that needs to change. But a) I don't think arresting politicians, however rightly, is going to do that--the problems are too embedded; b) arresting ALL politicians with unclean hands (to whatever extent) would pretty much shut down the gov't, and replacing them would just wind up as "same song, different verse"; c) things still need to be done in the meantime; and d) even with all the flaws, mistakes, and corruption, gov't still manages to get some good things done.
SO...
pragmatically...
ISTM that we need to work with what we've got. (Until pigs fly, "Adam's flesh & Adam's bone/Sits in Cair Paravel enthroned", and "peace shall come to Canterville".)
I can only conclude that his loyal supporters consider his disruptive and self-serving behaviour to be a good thing. The notion that the GOP was the home of strict constitutionalists seems to have been replaced by idolatry and "winning is everything".
It does seem bizarre that a country which didn't like arbitrary power from their king pre-rebellion, decided to have one. It doesn't matter what you call it - president or king - the shoe fits both. It is only a matter of term of office, one for a period of years, one for a period of their life.
ŧ https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/donald-trump-parasite-gone-with-the-wind/index.html
I found it very Trumpian. For whatever reason David Bernstein was Blagojevich's chosen journalistic mouthpiece to the outside world in the autumn of 2017. This was part of a media push to paint himself as sympathetic in advance of his Supreme Court appeal. The Trumpiest part of the article was this bit:
This rather forcefully reminded me of Trump's insistence that strongarming Ukraine by withholding Congressionally-mandated aid in exchange for manufacturing a political scandal about Joe Biden shouldn't be held against him because the aid was eventually released without the Ukrainians announcing an investigation. Which is true, because he got caught! So I don't really take the fact that Blagojevich didn't receive all the bribes he solicited before he got caught as a mitigating circumstance.
The whining about other governors who got lesser sentences than Blagojevich is also very Trumpian since it seems to flow from assumptions that all criminal governors are entitled to the same sentence regardless of their crimes.
I take the opposite view. Rather than saying that the work of government is too important to enforce any standards of behavior, I'd argue that the work of government is so important that anti-corruption standards are critical. Deliberately turning a blind eye to corruption as you suggest just invites further corruption, leading to less of the "good things" getting done.
For those who are interested here's an interview Rod Blagojevich gave to Anderson Cooper where Blagojevich is trying to claim to have been a political prisoner and Cooper calls him on his obvious self-serving lies. For those who don't have eleven minutes to watch the full interview the relevant bits are in this three minute excerpt.