Jump to content


Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Not really. Executive privilege is a thing, a worthwhile thing. It protects communications within the executive branch to permit candor between executive branch officials. That Bannon was at best an informal advisor largely destroys any claim of executive privilege. It is not so destroyed when the "deponents" are actual executive branch officials. The subject matter of the communication matters, too. Executive privilege is at its strongest when the communications involve national security or foreign policy/relations. It is probably at its lowest to nonexistent when bitching about campaign and election and partisan political matters. And, wildcat raises the issue that these schmucks still should have had to show up and invoke the privilege on a question-by-question basis, which I think is probably true. But, there are some OLC memos that say the DOJ should decline to prosecute contempt of Congress when the deponents are senior executive branch officials. There's also a DC District Court case that says those opinions aren't right. Also, if the DOJ fails to secure convictions for former executive branch officials, that further weakens Congress' contempt power and practially reduces it to zero against former executive branch officials, which has ramifications, because this kind of shit comes up in every administration.
  2. The availability of a more serious claim of executive privilege, by actual executive branch officials, as opposed to dipshits like Bannon, raises some questions. There's not a lot of law on this shit.
  3. Could be. I think the fact that Meadows, Scavino, and Navarro were actual executive branch officials while Bannon was not complicates those prosecutions. Should DOJ prosecute even with a high likelihood of acquittal?
  4. I'll add another layer to it. I did most of the right things, and my parents did most of the right things and were white in the post-war era, which set me up nicely, ala brisket. And, I was adopted, so that was a stroke of luck all by itself. All I know about my birth parents is that one or both of them were attorneys. But I was born with the addiction "gene," apparently. That could have and almost did derail everything and put me under an overpass on 35. But I managed to recover, which was some work. And, also, the values with which I was raised made it easier, in terms of what I expected of myself, what was expected of me by others, and by available healthcare resources. I feel extremely lucky and grateful for these things that enabled and assisted my recovery. Even though it was ultimately a choice and required effort on my part. The majority don't recover. Had I been unlucky enough to have been raised in a different, lower-class environment where being a drunk was more common and accepted, or even by my birth parents who were apparently educated, but also at least one of whom was probably an addict, I might not even be here, meaning certainly posting on Surly, and maybe not even on this earth. Edited to add: I should have left off "lower-class" above, because there are plenty of upper-class environments where substance abuse is condoned or accepted.
  5. The penalty phase is always a challenge. First, you have the decision to seek the death penalty, which requires some fortitude. Then the evidence and trial of the phase is always tricky.
  6. Seeing price reductions in the Dallas market, which is nice. A month ago, you had to offer 10%++ over to get almost anything.
  7. Ordinarily, I would probably agree with this. Congress often can't get out of its own way on investigations. I have been pretty impressed by the work of the Committee. But this seems bullheaded. I would have thought they were sharing work product like that all along.
  8. A capital case is always a challenge.
  9. There are shit tons of lazy slobs in "elite" high-paying jobs. They may not have the greatest job security, but they usually manage to stay well-paid. The poor do not have a monopoly on laziness or fecklessness.
  10. Yeah, those names are pretty ethnic for E-dogs. And, while they might have been spoiled, elitist shitheads, they werent' any rapier than any other group of drunken guys at UT back in the day. I'd have put my money on harder-partying, more violent frats. But that's been a long time now.
  11. Don't disagree. I think that's happening, though. Although it appears that some are taking pleas and intend to reduce their sentences by cooperation, so that's probably going to be disappointing. We'll see what happens with Rhodes et al.
  12. See, I tend to believe all of this is pessimistic speculation. Are there grounds for pessmism, sure. But let's not go making stuff up. Garland has a pretty good record as a prosecutor and led the team that convicted McVeigh. I think he's old school in the sense that he's not going to indulge in political spectacle-making, even if that spectacle is righteous. I am somewhat concerned that the Biden administration declines to prosecute for reasons other than the likelihood of conviction/solidity of the case. But there are signs that that won't happen, namely, the waiver of executive privilege with respect to "presidential records."
  13. What do you actually know about Merrick Garland that makes you think that he is treating this deal any differently tgan any other reasonable AG pick would have?
  14. Which leaders were those? I mean, we all have some damn good ideas who they were, but we don't know, know. Is rule of law and due process important or not? And, you entirely bypassed the inconvenient fact that US law doesn't seem to provide the death penalty for what they did. I love you man and respect your opinions, but I think this is off base.
  15. Almost none. This is why qualified immunity exists (FBI), and the prosecutors (DOJ, USA DC, and Special Counsel) enjoy complete immunity, as does, I believe the Executive Office of the President. Flynn or his attorney may be sanctioned, but I think rather doubtful. Jesse BInnall is one of the less outrageous Trump-identified attorneys (compared to say Sidney Powell). He toes the line between aggressive and sanctionable fairly well.
  16. Sarah Moffitt seems grounded. Her uniform complaint: “There is not one redeeming or educational thing in this book! The book is pornographic and explicit. This book breaks federal and state laws for distribution of pornography and obscenity to minors.”
  17. Still, I think it's great that the district imposes some transparency on this process. Not sure if that's required by statute or what.
  18. Nice that the GQP has made "lol" normal in campaign material.
  19. Bonds work as an investment if you get decent interest off of them and you don't have to trade them much. You buy a "ladder" of bonds with maturities spanning the period of interest (say, your retirement), and you just collect the interest and are happy about it. You don't worry about YTM or the value of the bond. When you start having to trade bonds is when they start acting like stocks and lose a lot of their appeal to the ordinary investor. Bond funds, by their nature, have to do more trading than an ordinary outright position in bonds, so you experience more volatility and risk than outright ownership. Bond funds arguably destroy most of the appeal of owning bonds because your return isn't fixed and you are subject to the volatility of trading. In more normal times, when interest rates are "decent" and fluctuate a couple of percentage points in either direction over a year or two, they're just a low-risk/low-return income investment. In times like these, where rates have been negligible and start shooting up to not-negligible, bonds kind of suck: they have shitty rates making you want to trade them for those with better rates, and you eat shit on the trades.
  20. Sad to say, if she lists/sells about 14 properties a year at $500k each, she makes about $200k. That's probably easy enough to do in this crazy-ass market. Low inventory, but prices are insane.
  21. Well, before a last-minute switch from allocating the money directly to counties to allocating it to councils of government that were a tad less discriminatory, HUD, which administers the grant, was threatening to sue. They approved the switch. So it appears not.
  • Create New...