« first day (759 days earlier)      last day (52 days later) » 

1:16 AM
We're getting word that Rudy is just shouting it out now on CNN
 
@Wipqozn no he's not, none of these candidates are
@Stormblessed too recent? It was 18 years ago lol
 
1:53 AM
i think this is just the California law
> The law signed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in July says candidates for president must release five years of tax returns by November to run in the California primary, which is scheduled for March 2020.
still, the fact that you fight so hard to not do something that everyone else before you did without a law to tell them to do it shows that Trump has something to hide
so the Blue and White party seems to be sticking to it's stance that they wont form a unity government with Likud while Netanyahu is still it's leader which if i recall correctly, what they said last time.
so this is probably going to go into a third election
 
 
1 hour later…
 
3 hours later…
6:34 AM
[Giuliani says "of course" he asked Ukraine to look into Biden seconds after denying it ](twitter.com/thehill/status/1174916363556540421)
 
 
4 hours later…
10:41 AM
An Alberta couple who treated their son's illness with natural remedies rather than take him to a doctor have been found not guilty in the toddler's death after a retrial. cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/…
Jfc
> The judge ultimately sided with the defence's medical experts in finding the boy had viral not bacterial meningitis and ultimately died of a lack of oxygen.
> "It follows that the Crown did not prove medical attention would have saved [Ezekiel's] life or that if he had viral meningitis and it was life-threatening [which is not established in the evidence], medical attention even could have saved his life."
 
11:41 AM
lmao, DeBlassio out "I contributed everything I could which by all accounts was nothing"
 
better luck next year bill
 
12:10 PM
 
12:52 PM
I dunno I kind of feel like if your religion is so great maybe you shouldn't have to harass me while trying to check out a giant metal bean
It does kind of conflict with e.g. protesting, but also protests usually…happen and then stop happening, unlike these folk being out there all the time bothering people
ಠ_ಠ
 
Has anyone asked any of the democratic candidates if they would consider pardoning Trump? I'd love to hear responses to that.
 
 
2 hours later…
3:11 PM
@Jolenealaska that is an interesting question. I've heard (unfounded?) speculation that Trump might resign hours before leaving office, so that Pence can pardon him.
Although heck, maybe he'd just pardon himself before leaving office
(though that's more likely to be successfully challenged in court, Pence pardoning him would not)
My eternal reaction to the Ukraine phone call news:
This phone call occurred the day after Mueller testified to congress. Trump knew he got away with it, and had no fear of doing it again
 
4:05 PM
@BradC Can someone be pardoned before they're convicted?
 
@SaintWacko Yes. President Nixon is the most obvious example.
Also Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers on his first day in office.
> Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
Of course that scope (during his term in office only) wouldn't be broad enough to cover Trump, since we already know he committed crimes before taking his oath (the Stormy Daniels payments, for one of many)
 
@BradC So what you're saying is that Trump has already been pardoned?
 
It also couldn't cover any state crimes
@Yuuki lol, not sure it covered "falsely claiming a bone spur exemption"
> (1) All persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973, in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, and
> (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973, in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.
I'd have to think that any deceptive act by Trump to escape selective service would be a "violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder"
And would therefore be covered.
Doesn't prevent us from calling him a liar and a coward, though
 
5:04 PM
> Background materials from the Liberal Party said the semi-automatic assault rifle ban will include the AR-15, a weapon the party says is "specifically designed to inflict mass human casualties and [has] no place in Canadian society."
> A Liberal government also would create a buyback program for all assault rifles that were legally purchased, offering owners a fair market price for their weapons and giving law enforcement agencies resources to administer the program. A two-year amnesty would be put in place while the program is being set up.
 
@Wipqozn I'm convinced that, though likely unpopular, a buyback is a necessary part of any ban. The only other option is grandfathering in all those that were already sold. In the US, that's, what, 10+ million AR-type weapons?
That's vastly more than the small number (~175k) of full-auto weapons that were already out on the market when they were banned in 1986
(and those have extremely strict federal licensing restrictions)
If you banned the manufacture and sale of a weapon without a corresponding buyback all you'd be doing is causing a rush on purchases before the implementation date.
 
5:23 PM
@BradC As well as creating a massive black market after the ban.
That'd likely happen with a grandfather clause too.
Even outlawing private sales of banned weapons, people will do cash-only transactions to transfer banned weapons.
 
@Yuuki Right. With a grandfather clause you'd be creating legal private market; you can actually still buy private sale pre-1986 fully automatic weapons in the US, they're just very rare and prohibitively expensive
(like $50-100k+)
(Plus you need non-trivial federal ATF approval)
To do it right we just need to be careful to define the characteristics of an "assault weapon" (semi-auto fire, easily replaceable magazines) instead of specific models or via less relevant characteristics like folding stocks or grip placement
Yes, that would also include lots of hunting rifles, but I'd rather go further in that direction than not far enough and leave loopholes that gun manufacturers can get around with quick cosmetic modifications
 
5:46 PM
I'd be fine with banning all semi-auto weapons
Leave people with pump-action shotguns, revolvers, and lever-action rifles
That's all you need for hunting or home defense
 
6:18 PM
@SaintWacko yep. Bolt-action rifles are generally considered more accurate anyway
 
 
2 hours later…
8:25 PM
You can see relevant quotes in this article at LawFareBlog in case the paywall is an issue.
> President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’s son, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, on a probe, according to people familiar with the matter.
That's, like, impeachable squared
impeachable to the 8th power
From Benjamin Wittes' commentary in the above link:
> If it is true that the president used the threat of withholding congressionally authorized funds to—in the Post’s words—”extort” a foreign leader into investigating a domestic political opponent and his family, that would be a very big deal indeed. That allegation, if true, would unambiguously constitute an impeachable offense, indeed an offense that positively demands impeachment from any Congress that wishes to be taken seriously.
(emphasis mine)
> It would be impeachable for at least three separate reasons: first, because it would involve the extortion of a foreign leader for personal and political gain; second, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s involvement in a U.S. election; and third, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s investigation of a political opponent in a fashion that grossly violates the civil liberties of a U.S. person, namely Biden’s son.
 
@BradC I dunno, man...
 
@Yuuki Exactly
 
8:51 PM
@BradC Well, that's a constitutional crisis if I ever heard one.
 
@BradC I saw a BOOM with quite a few exclamation marks from him earlier
 
@Yuuki Yep. And the crisis isn't just that he's capable and willing to do this, its that even the Dem-majority house doesn't have the guts to do what is clearly necessary
 
Nixon resigned before getting impeached and then got pardoned, so it's not like even impeachment proceedings would stop that particular kind of tactic
 
@murgatroid99 Yep, we talked about pardons above
But at least Nixon had a respect for the office and the country and was persuadable to do what he needed to
Never thought I'd say this, but Trump is no Nixon
He's, like 100x worse
 
I'm also saying it wouldn't be a constitutional crisis, because it's happened before and it wasn't one then
 
9:00 PM
@murgatroid99 I get your point, I know not everyone uses that phrase to mean the same thing
But surely "madman strips the country for parts from the oval office while congress sits with its thumbs up its ass" is some kind of constitutional/existential/fundamental crisis
Even if the remedies (impeachment) are in fact outlined in the constitution
> The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to take initial steps to potentially hold former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in contempt over his refusal to answer questions at this week's hearing before the panel, multiple sources tell CNN.
 
Trump has definitely done some things that probably qualify as constitutional crises, but I don't think that specifically would be one of them
 
@murgatroid99 What isn't? Extorting a foreign leader to meddle in the US elections?
 
@BradC I was talking about the thing Yuuki responded to about Trump resigning and then getting pardoned
 
> Trump: [Murders nuns in broad daylight]

> Democrats: “We’re... honestly not sure what to do here.”

> Everyone: “Wow the Dems really stepped in it this time.”
@murgatroid99 Oh, well, I don't think Yuuki was suggesting him resigning and being pardoned would be a constitutional crisis; it would just be the shit icing on the crap cake
His behavior in office and the Dem's refusal to do anything about it is the crisis
 
9:28 PM
It's also not like the Democrats could actually stop him. They can begin impeachment proceedings, which would be inconvenient for him and show that they're trying to enforce the rule of law, but the Senate wouldn't convict
 
 
2 hours later…
11:18 PM
reut.rs/2Of5kAg Pentagon to send troops to bolster Saudi defenses after attack
 

« first day (759 days earlier)      last day (52 days later) »