Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
There are varying legal opinions about whether a sitting President can be subject to criminal indictment, but there is, in fact, no law, regulation, nor any explicit language in the Constitution governing the matter. Rachel Maddow has been covering this topic extensively over the past few months. There is a widely-known Justice Department opinion dating from the Nixon administration, but it is on very shaky ground and is in no way binding.
The gist of the opinion is that there is no Constitutional proscription against a President facing criminal charges while in office, but that such charges would constitute an unacceptable distraction from the President's ability to govern the country. In other words, it would be sort of like an internal coup in that he would be de facto removed from his duties even as he retained the office.
Something that has been tossed around is the idea of a "sealed indictment" — a presentation of charges against the President that are suspended — that is, the prosecution on them is deferred — until he leaves office. In addition to the existential threat against his Presidency, this would also get around any claims on the statute of limitations for the described offenses. It may also be used as leverage to force his resignation, if Congress refuses to impeach him, and would most certainly be ammunition against him in the 2020 election.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 28th 2019 at 7:22:26 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Twitter and Reddit feed for Cohen, of course, is nothing but "Democrat conspiracy" and "Oh, NOW they care about crimes."
Edit:
Privately, I believe a President needs immunity from crimes while in office. Hence, the government should remove him from office first. We're in a bonafide constitutional crisis because the level of corruption in the government is that an actual criminal cannot be removed from office....and continues to commit crimes.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 28th 2019 at 4:23:40 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
There are two Constitutional ways to remove a sitting President from office: a declaration of incapacity according to the 25th Amendment, and Congressional impeachment. What makes the prosecution angle so bizarre is that, by a literal and strict reading of the Constitution, you could indict a President for crimes, try him, convict him, and put him in prison, but he would still be President until his term expires or he is removed in one the of the two ways specified above.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 28th 2019 at 7:32:24 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So apparently the North Korea summit in Vietnam was a bust, with no deal reached.
So it was basically a two-fer of fail.
Edited by speedyboris on Feb 28th 2019 at 8:45:18 AM
@Swanpride The reason that sort of thing is rarely considered for the USA is because of the strength of entrenched interests and their habit of deregulating themselves given an inch of wiggle room.
I believe this came up before and the conclusion was that anything less than kneecapping the insurance industry would still give them too much money and influence.
Edited by RainehDaze on Feb 28th 2019 at 2:56:08 PM
![]()
Gonna have to disagree with you. Credit where credit's due, I don't think Trump failed in negotiations. In fact, I think it went as well as it realistically could have.
Steps towards disarmament would be great, but they were... well, optimistic is an understatement.
And, considering how bad he normally is at negotiation, walking away is easily the best thing he could have done there. No deal is better than a bad deal, and even I have to admit that in doing so definitively he made more of a statement for the next time.
Our president, no matter how much I hate the current one, not being walked over by dictators is not a bad thing.
Edited by Larkmarn on Feb 28th 2019 at 9:57:34 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
So, failing to negotiate anything is better than giving away the entire country by negotiating badly? How low our standards have sunk.
![]()
Also, this.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 28th 2019 at 10:03:41 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"All things considered, Trump probably should have pardoned Cohen. He'd have taken a PR hit for it to be sure, but it may have been better for him in the long run than letting Cohen talk to prosecutors, Congressmen, and the American people.
His total ineptitude continues to be a blessing. Trump is not a criminal genius. He's a man who was born into so much wealth that he never had to deal with consequences for his actions, which meant he never had to learn how to escape them.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 28th 2019 at 8:02:13 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Continuing my train of thought.
In a justice system predicated upon evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it is better to have people asking what you are hiding than to let them have a concrete answer.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
![]()
I mean, yes.
What has happened is that we're in a better position than we were to begin with. Korea (rightfully) thought it had all the cards because Trump caved before, has a history of caving, and a desperate desire to want to do something that may be considered historic no matter the cost.
No deal, but Trump actually putting holes in that belief means that, in an absolute sense, we are better off now than before the summit. Slightly, but better off.
And yes, standards are low but I do believe that this might be the only time we've come away from... literally any international meeting in this presidency better off than we were before.
Edited by Larkmarn on Feb 28th 2019 at 10:05:58 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.On the other hand, every day we fail to negotiate something is another day North Korea has to strengthen their nuclear program, which gives them a stronger bargaining position as well.
That said, I do agree with Larkman that no deal is better than a bad deal. I was honestly half expecting Trump to announce that he was going to pull all troops out of Korea just to get back in the news cycle after the Cohen hearing.
Yeah while Trump was walked over there (he took North Korea’s side when it came to their torture of an American they imprisoned) he didn’t full on surrender, the entire thing was a pointless waste of money, but not directly harmful to American interests.
Edited by Silasw on Feb 28th 2019 at 3:52:15 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranRemember how Mark Gaetz threated Micheal Cohen on Twitter yesterday? Well now he’s being investigated by the Florida State Bar.
The organization, which licenses lawyers to practice in the state, would not disclose details of the investigation, but spokesperson Francine Walker, said the bar is “quite aware of [Gaetz’s] comments... and we have opened an investigation.”
Gatez, a licensed Florida attorney and ally of President Donald Trump, came under fire on Tuesday for a tweet that appeared to threaten Cohen with personal retribution over his testimony, which alleged that Trump is a “racist” and a “con-man” who participated in criminal activity during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Hey @Michael Cohen 212,” Gaetz wrote in a since-deleted tweet. “Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot...”
Edited by megaeliz on Feb 28th 2019 at 10:59:44 AM
I can't help but wonder if the Cohen hearing did piss him off enough that he lost interest in actually trying to negotiate though.
One thing a lot of Obama staffers that have experience with Iran and Cuba often stress is how much work went into preplanning and ironing out details before the official negotiations actually took place. This way both sides knew what to expect and how to best make their deals.
Trump reportedly puts as little effort as possible into the planning stage, saying he can negotiate from his "gut". So he goes in without much groundwork being laid for anything to get done.
TIL that the legal profession is literally called the "bar", and why that is so (thanks to Wikipedia). How peculiar yet sensible.
BTW, is there a summarized list of all the things that Cohen's hearing has either confirmed or revealed?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Sorry for butting in with something completely different, but in the past, I was advocating for the US taking a good look at the German healthcare system instead of always thinking along the line of the NHS or the Canada-style system, but I always had trouble to really explain why. Now, this video does a pretty good job explaining some basics regarding the different healthcare systems which are possible, with some hints why the German system would indeed something the US should look at:
There is naturally more to it...the German system is the oldest in the world, and therefore overly complicated, and it has some flaws on their own. Hence I plugged some quotes from the comment section from people who claim to have experiences with it. Let's start with some of the pitfalls of the system.
For example: - Connecting the distribution of the funds to insurers to morbidity data creates an incentive to influence the diagnosis documentation to create "more" sick people in order to get a greater share. That doesn´t mean the insurers manipulate the data themselves, but they try to influence the process how these documentations are created. - On the side of the healthcare providers the system also gives incentives to offer more complex and invasive procedures - even when not really neccessary - to generate more profit, especially for hospitals and specialists. - The patients are not participating in the billing process, so they have no idea what their doctors bring to account with the insurers nor do they get an impression what kind of costs their care generates. - The public system includes a budget element, so doctors don´t have an incentive to go beyond a certain threshold with the care they provide based on a quarter year division, the system is indifferent to the question if more care is needed or reasonable. - While insurers are legally non-profits, hospitals and nursing homes are not. Initially coming from public funding they are increasingly turned into corporations with negative impacts on working conditions especially for nurses due to economic measures.
Overall I think the basic layout is right, but the way the system is regulated and fine-tuned requires constant adjustments and is always reason for dispute between insurers, healthcare providers and politicians.
All this said, well, I think an American would be quite surprised how much is covered in this system:
Sorry for this long post, but if the US really wants to move into the direction of healthcare for all, one should be aware of the options...and advantages.