***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Tempted to just stay up for the upcoming tweetstorm. This is gonna be good

 

[nomnom]

Trump is gonna tweet this out lol

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

 

[gry60]

What the **** is this?

Is this what passes as an intellectual discussion for the fox news viewer?

"Cohen plead guilty for violating campaign finance laws"

"I don't think what Cohen did was violating the law"

*Alright Judge Carlson...*

To those people out there who think that you can convince Trumpists, this is what you're up against.

This dude asked the same question three times, just because Avenatti wouldn't give him the answer his audience wanted to hear, and on top of that, accused the guest of not understanding the question.

What a joke.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I’ve given up with my father. You can’t cut through that much unbridled ignorance with a machete.

These people don’t use logic. Logic is the enemy. I’ve had this discussion a couple of times, and that was enough for me. I barely engage my pops now, sadly.

It’s like people are insecure by their lack of knowledge, so they try to wear it as a blanket or a badge of some sort.

 

[rolaholic]

The real Cuomo is back it seems,the progressive champion he ran as was predictably all for show

Gonna be back to business as usual in NY these next 4 years

 

[Nike Jordan]

Mario Cuomo is rolling over his grave.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[Belgium]

If a defendant uses a perjury trap defense, the defense must affirmitively prove the following:
-The defendant must show the prosecution illegally procured the false answer.
Thus, when the grand jury is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply.

Prosecutors do not have a duty to warn witnesses of the consequences of committing perjury (United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976), however the DOJ requires prosecutors to provide a number of warnings similar to Miranda warnings to 'subjects' and 'targets' of grand jury investigations. Putative defendants ('targets') must be advised of their status as such.
Those warnings bolster prosecutors' cases that the witness was called to seek truthful testimony, not to induce perjury. (United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968, 974-75 (5th Cir. 1989)
Even if those warnings were ignored by prosecutors, that can not be used as grounds for dismissal of an indictment.


A (federal) perjury charge has a number of requirements that must all be met in order to prove the charge:
1. The defendant must be under oath in a federal proceeding
The first element of a perjury offense is that the defendant must be under oath during his testimony, declaration or certification. There is one specific exception to that rule, it can also apply to an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury, permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

2. The defendant must have made a false statement. The indictment should set forth the precise falsehoods alleged and the factual basis of their falsity.
Neither the court nor the trial jury must accept the defendant's interpretation; instead, the statement should be examined in context. (Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 355 (1973)

3. The defendant must have made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory. (United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993)
The statute requires that defendants acted "willfully" or "knowingly"; both have their own sections in the elements of perjury but they are more or less the same and the prosecution only needs to prove one of those 2 standards, not both.
The government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity.
If the defendant believed his or her statement to be true when it was made, even though it was false, this essential element will not have been proven

4. The false statement must be material to the proceedings.
A false statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed."
(Incomplete but I'm just about to have dinner)



The jury must determine "beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged." (United States v. Gaudin, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 2320 (1995)

 

[blastercombo]

Someone put the word out!


Trump supports! Stay in your homes if you’re by the hurricane! The storm knows you’re a good American and god will protect you and only other American Jesus worshipping people! You need not fear! Stay!

 

[elpablo21]

Cult45 can be happy now, the witch hunt is reaching across the aisle

 

[boris]

 

[Belgium]

Cult45 can be happy now, the witch hunt is reaching across the aisle

NY federal prosecutors are also weighing charges against a former Obama WH counsel who worked in the administration from 2009 to 2010.
Mueller made the referral. It was linked to Manafort's lobbying if I recall correctly. I think it was the NYT who reported it yesterday or the day before.
Edit: Found it in my browser history, I saw it on The Hill (rehosted from CNN)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...tors-weighing-charges-against-former-obama-wh
Federal prosecutors weighing charges against former Obama WH counsel: report


That and what you posted must be fake news though, deep state Mueller and his cabal of angry Democrats are only going after honest squeeky clean Republican patriots.
The witch hunt is alive and well Comrade, this is just more deep state propaganda to make Mueller look like he's doing his job

 

[whywesteppin]

The witch hunt is alive and well Comrade, this is just more deep state propaganda to make Mueller look like he's doing his job

Exactly. It's not that hard to understand. But I'm sure liberals will put their dishonest spin on this.

This is probably another FBI-sponsored false flag operation I bet you the media is in on too. Stay vigilant, товарищ.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Kale Gang knew we had to sacrifice one of your own to hide da witch hunt.

Soros gonna keep that commissary account blessed doe.

 

[IATT]

 

[boris]

Exactly. It's not that hard to understand. But I'm sure liberals will put their dishonest spin on this.

This is probably another FBI-sponsored false flag operation I bet you the media is in on too. Stay vigilant, товарищ.

Gotta put an END to these sour grapes accusations.

 

[d nice]

Manafort bout to do his best Smokie Robinson impression for the feds.

 

[130122]

imma need someone to replace the faces with trump and manafort

 

[d nice]

In the Red
Americans' Economic Woes are Hurting Trump

Key Findings

• While the economic anxiety of “working-class” white people is often identified as a key driver in the ascent of President Donald Trump, our research shows how this theory breaks down in key ways.

• Traditional methods of gauging economic concerns are far more reflective of political leanings than actual economic distress. In contrast, when asked detailed questions about the state of their personal finances and the experience of hardships, racial and ethnic minorities report experiencing more economic distress than white people do. For example, black people and Hispanics are more likely than white people to report difficulty making housing, loan, or credit card payments and to report insufficient savings.

• This new measure of economic distress shows that working-class white people are not distinctively distressed relative to other groups. In fact, white Americans without a college degree report a lower level of distress than college-educated black and Hispanic Americans. Non-white Americans report more economic distress at every level of income.

• Unlike economic “anxiety” as traditionally measured, economic distress has a modest relationship with partisanship. If anything, Hillary Clinton voters report more economic distress than Donald Trump voters. Economic distress is more strongly correlated with support for liberal, not conservative, economic policies.

• Among political independents, 52 percent of those experiencing relatively little distress approve of Trump, compared to 35 percent of those who are experiencing relatively significant distress. Genuine economic distress is arguably hurting, not helping, approval ratings of President Trump.

The prevailing narrative of the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath focused heavily on the economic concerns of Americans, particularly among one key subset of the population — the “white working class,” often defined as white people without a four-year college degree. These anxieties were said to be of unusual political salience, contributing to Donald Trump’s success, especially with the white working class.

Our research suggests that this storyline is flawed. In the years leading up to the election, economic anxiety was actually decreasing, not increasing, as the recovery from the Great Recession gradually improved people’s assessments of the economy.(1) In fact, what was distinctive about voting behavior in 2016 was not the outsized role of economic anxiety. Instead, attitudes about race and ethnicity were more strongly related to how people voted.(i)

In the 2018 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey), we measure economic “distress,” as defined by an individual’s response to a number of detailed questions about personal financial stability. Conventional measures of economic “anxiety,” defined by an individual’s broad-based economic perceptions, are more likely to reflect that person’s political leanings, as a president’s co-partisans typically rate the economy more favorably than do people aligned with another party.(ii)

Contrary to the popular narrative, VOTER Survey results show that economic distress is not distinctively prevalent among the white working class. It is much more a fact of life for people of color. In part because of this, Trump voters in 2016 do not report more economic distress than do Clinton voters. If anything, the opposite is true.

Economically distressed Americans are, unsurprisingly, more pessimistic about economic mobility and the “American dream.” They are also more likely to support government policies intended to redistribute wealth. This is true of Americans overall as well as white people who report economic distress by our definition.

The political implications of economic distress are mostly negative for President Trump. Among independents in particular, those experiencing economic distress are more likely to disapprove of Trump’s performance in office. Therefore, economic distress appears to function as a referendum on Trump’s presidency rather than a driver of support. Indeed, genuine economic distress may cost Trump support.

A More Detailed Measure of Economic Distress
A typical approach to measuring the economic concerns of Americans is to ask them general questions about the state of their own finances as well as the nation’s economy overall. The problem with these measures, however, is that they are powerfully and increasingly contaminated by partisan bias.(iii) All else equal, Americans feel better about the economy when their party controls the White House.

This was a telling feature of public opinion before the election. According to YouGov/The Economist polls, Republicans in the highest family income quintile (those making more than $100,000 per year) were slightly less satisfied with the national economy than Democrats in the lowest income quintile (those making less than $20,000 per year).(iv) And it has been a telling feature after the election as well. The 2016 VOTER Survey asked Americans in December 2016 about whether their life, the economy, and their family finances were getting better or worse — and posed these general questions to the same Americans in July 2017. There was a predictable partisan flip-flop: After Trump’s election, Democrats felt worse about their quality of life and the economy, while Republicans became much more optimistic.(v)

These findings underscore the need to measure economic concerns in a way that mitigates partisan bias. To do this, both the 2017 and 2018 VOTER Surveys employed a different set of questions. Rather than elicit subjective opinions about the economy, these questions asked about direct experiences with financial instability or hardship as well as views of aspects of personal economic circumstances.

The questions included:

• In the last 12 months, have you lost your job?
• In the last 12 months, have you had a spouse or partner lose their job?
• In the last 12 months, have you had difficulty making a mortgage payment or paying your rent?
• In the last 12 months, have you had difficulty making a student loan payment?
• In the last 12 months, have you had difficulty making a car payment?
• In the last 12 months, have you had difficulty making a credit card payment?
• In the last 12 months, have you experienced a drop in your household income?
• Overall, how satisfied are you with your job?
• Overall, how satisfied are you with your income?
• Overall, how satisfied are you with your savings?
• Overall, how satisfied are you with your debt?
• Thinking about your household’s finances today, do you feel your household is financially prepared for the unexpected?
• Does your household have any money set aside that you consider savings?
• Over the past six months how worried have you been about your personal finances?

Among all the 2018 VOTER Survey respondents, 19 percent reported being “very worried” about their finances and a similar proportion said that they were not prepared for the unexpected (Table 1). A smaller number reported being “very dissatisfied” with their job or income.

A key economic vulnerability was savings. A third of respondents reported that they did not have savings set aside and about one in five (21 percent) said that they were very dissatisfied with their savings. About 7 percent said they have had difficulty paying a student loan — a large percentage given that only 16 percent of American adults report having outstanding student loan debt.(vi)More than one in 10 reported having difficulty with housing costs (12 percent) or credit card debt (14 percent). Fully a quarter of respondents reported a drop in household income in the past year.

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2018-voter-survey/in-the-red

 

[IATT]

 

[blastercombo]

Guys, the hurricane has been great! Zero deaths or damage caused by the storm. It’s from the water! Great news!

 

[nomnom]

 

[Belgium]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-as-early-as-monday-source-idUSKCN1LV0OB?il=0
Trump 'likely' to announce new China tariffs as early as Monday: source
U.S. President Donald Trump is likely to announce new tariffs on about $200 billion on Chinese imports as early as Monday, a senior administration official told Reuters on Saturday.

The tariff level will probably be about 10 percent, the Wall Street Journal reported, quoting people familiar with the matter. This is below the 25 percent the administration said it was considering for this possible round of tariffs.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


The upcoming tariffs will be on a list of items that included $200 billion worth of internet technology products and other electronics, printed circuit boards and consumer goods including Chinese seafood, furniture and lighting products, tires, chemicals, plastics, bicycles and car seats for babies. It was unclear if the administration will exempt any of the products that were on the list, which was announced in July.

On Friday, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said Trump “has been clear that he and his administration will continue to take action to address China’s unfair trade practices. We encourage China to address the long-standing concerns raised by the Unites States.”

Trump had already directed aides to proceed with tariffs, despite Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s attempts to restart trade talks with China.

One observer in the business sector said the administration may have reduced its planned tariff level after hearing public comments, hoping companies would not immediately hike prices for consumer goods to pass along the costs. Still, the additional tariffs could complicate trade talks with China expected later this month.


Trump has demanded that China cut its $375 billion trade surplus with the United States, end policies aimed at acquiring U.S. technologies and intellectual property and roll back high-tech industrial subsidies.

This week, the world’s two largest economies appeared to be making progress on trade. Treasury invited senior Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Liu He, for more talks.

The administration has already levied duties on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods following a study on China’s intellectual property practices released earlier this year.

On Sept. 7, Trump warned that he had further tariffs ready to go on $267 billion worth of Chinese imports beyond those that will be targeted this week. If all of the tariffs were invoked, total imports from China facing tariffs would exceed the $505 billion in goods that the United States imported from China last year.


This year, imports from China through July were up nearly 9 percent from the same period of 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Fits in with what the WSJ and Bloomberg have reported in the last few days
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...on-in-china-goods-1537040325?mod=hp_lead_pos1
Trump to Announce New Tariffs on $200 Billion in Chinese Imports
The plan puts at risk high-level trade talks between the U.S. and China set for this month

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nt-200-billion-in-china-tariffs-despite-talks
Trump Wants $200 Billion in China Tariffs Despite Talks, Sources Say


And of course this analysis image remains relevant. (Source: Moody Analytics, WSJ)
China would presumably swiftly retaliate with more tariffs if Trump goes through with this next round.

 

[AEA18]

Guys, the hurricane has been great! Zero deaths or damage caused by the storm. It’s from the water! Great news!

Yeah that huge tree that killed a mother and her child when it fell on their house could have happened any other time. Had nothing to do with the hurricane.

 

[elpablo21]