The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
How this morning’s hearing with Secretary Mnuchin would have gone in Fast Eddie World:

Representative Eddie: Good morning, Secretary Mnuchin. Before we begin, I recognize you are here voluntarily, and I thank you for your appearance today. To begin, I ask that you read into the record the US code requiring the IRS to release any individual’s return to Congress upon request. I’ve provided you with a copy.

Secretary Mnuchin: Alright. (reads aloud)
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Representative Eddie: Thank you. Do you see any reference to any legislative purpose?

Secretary Mnuchin: Well, I am in consultation with our legal...

Representative Eddie: I’m sorry. It was a simple question. And a simple yes or no will do.

Secretary Mnuchin: With all due respect, it’s not that simple...

Representative Eddie: I hate to interrupt, but I’ll take that as non responsive.

Having read the relevant US Code, are you now willing to order the head of the IRS to provide said return to Congress? Anything other than a yes or no will be deemed non responsive.

Secretary Mnuchin: On the advice of legal counsel, I’m not prepared to...

Representative Eddie: I again hate to interrupt. Please state clearly if you are prepared to order the release of the President’s tax return to Congress? Yes or no.

Secretary Mnuchin: At this time I’m not in a position to...

Representative Eddie: I’m sorry, I must interrupt again and take that as non responsive.

Sergeant at Arms, will you please approach Secretary Mnuchin.

Secretary Mnuchin, in front of you is an arrest warrant issued upon probable cause for violation of US Code Title 26 Subtitle F. I will ask you one more time to comply with the US Code as written. Do you now wish to reconsider and do so?

Secretary Mnuchin: At this time I’m not prepared to...

Representative Eddie: That’s fine. Sergeant at Arms, please take Secretary Mnuchin into custody based on the arrest warrant already issued for violation of US Code Title 26 Subtitle F.


If only the real world was like this.
 
Last edited:
About the itching of some to strike Iran. One of the arguments is Iran's sponsoring of international terrorism. How does this hurt the US to any meaningful degree? In terms of deaths, I get the impression that good old home-grown right-wing terrorism in the US does more harm to Americans than do the Iranians. In broader terms, US gun deaths inflicted by her own citizens eclipse those deaths caused by all external terrorists and all wars combined.

One 9/11 resulted in a war against Iraq (the wrong actor.) Americans inflict upon themselves the equivalent of at least TEN 9/11s per year, by body count.
How about the supposed greatest nation on Earth get its own house in some semblance of order before thrashing about and beating up other countries?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
How this morning’s hearing with Secretary Mnuchin would have gone in Fast Eddie World:

Representative Eddie: Good morning, Secretary Mnuchin. Before we begin, I recognize you are here voluntarily, and I thank you for your appearance today. To begin, I ask that you read into the record the US code requiring the IRS to release any individual’s return to Congress upon request. I’ve provided you with a copy.

Secretary Mnuchin: Alright. (reads aloud)
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Representative Eddie: Thank you. Do you see any reference to any legislative purpose?

Secretary Mnuchin: Well, I am in consultation with our legal...

Representative Eddie: I’m sorry. It was a simple question. And a simple yes or no will do.

Secretary Mnuchin: With all due respect, it’s not that simple...

Representative Eddie: I hate to interrupt, but I’ll take that as non responsive.

Having read the relevant US Code, are you now willing to order the head of the IRS to provide said return to Congress? Anything other than a yes or no will be deemed non responsive.

Secretary Mnuchin: On the advice of legal counsel, I’m not prepared to...

Representative Eddie: I again hate to interrupt. Please state clearly if you are prepared to order the release of the President’s tax return to Congress? Yes or no.

Secretary Mnuchin: At this time I’m not in a position to...

Representative Eddie: I’m sorry, I must interrupt again and take that as non responsive.

Sergeant at Arms, will you please approach Secretary Mnuchin.

Secretary Mnuchin, in front of you is an arrest warrant issued upon probable cause for violation of US Code Title 26 Subtitle F. I will ask you one more time to comply with the US Code as written. Do you now wish to reconsider and do so?

Secretary Mnuchin: At this time I’m not prepared to...

Representative Eddie: That’s fine. Sergeant at Arms, please take Secretary Mnuchin into custody based on the arrest warrant already issued for violation of US Code Title 26 Subtitle F.


If only the real world was like this.
Click to expand...

Oh come on they need to give their sergeant at arms something to do.
 
Lurch said:
About the itching of some to strike Iran. One of the arguments is Iran's sponsoring of international terrorism. How does this hurt the US to any meaningful degree? In terms of deaths, I get the impression that good old home-grown right-wing terrorism in the US does more harm to Americans than do the Iranians. In broader terms, US gun deaths inflicted by her own citizens eclipse those deaths caused by all external terrorists and all wars combined.

One 9/11 resulted in a war against Iraq (the wrong actor.) Americans inflict upon themselves the equivalent of at least TEN 9/11s per year, by body count.
How about the supposed greatest nation on Earth get its own house in some semblance of order before thrashing about and beating up other countries?
Click to expand...

Remember, in the leadup to Iraq, we had 1) Iraq had invaded Kuwait. Granted, it was 10 years prior, but it showed agression; 2) Saddam was the ruler who ordered that invasion, and therefore, again, had shown agression; 3) We didn't wipe out Iraq after the first Gulf War and therefore a lot of people considered it to be unfinished business; 4) The UN had intervened and ordered the destruction of all WMDs and WMD facilities; therefore, any WMDs, while imaginary, were in violation of the UN decree; 5) the case to the US people relied on Iraq having WMDs and thereby violating UN decree. The justification for the invasion of Iraq depended on all of these factors being present, and, even then, it wasn't well-supported at the outset, and, in retrospect, was a disaster. Almost no one believes it was good any more.

Now, what is the basis for the attack of Iran? Compared to the attack on Iraq, there is nothing. "All-around baddies" is basically it? Totally weak.

War with Iraq was debatable. I think the wrong side won the debate, but at least there was an argument to be had. War with Iran? Clearly war for the sake of war, there's no argument.
 
Lurch said:
About the itching of some to strike Iran. One of the arguments is Iran's sponsoring of international terrorism. How does this hurt the US to any meaningful degree? In terms of deaths, I get the impression that good old home-grown right-wing terrorism in the US does more harm to Americans than do the Iranians. In broader terms, US gun deaths inflicted by her own citizens eclipse those deaths caused by all external terrorists and all wars combined.

One 9/11 resulted in a war against Iraq (the wrong actor.) Americans inflict upon themselves the equivalent of at least TEN 9/11s per year, by body count.
How about the supposed greatest nation on Earth get its own house in some semblance of order before thrashing about and beating up other countries?
Click to expand...
It also begs the question of why not give Saudi Arabia a good thumping since violent Wahhabist/Salafist ideology is the greater threat by several orders of magnitude.

Shia extremists tend more towards "jihad" as an internal struggle.
 
Baby Trump had a tantrum this morning, stomped out of a meeting with the Democrats. Schumer noted the WH had materials pre-prepared suggesting it was a planned pout.

NY Daily News:Trump storms out of infrastructure meeting with Democrats — Pelosi says he ‘lacks confidence’
“But frankly, Speaker Pelosi said something terrible today,” Trump said, according to the source, adding he won’t team up on legislation while Democrats continue to investigate him. ...

Republicans, including Trump’s own aides, had poured cold water on the deal, suggesting the GOP has other policy priorities.

Schumer said those internal GOP squabbles were the real cause of Trump’s hissy fit, not the investigations.

“The investigations were going on three weeks ago,” Schumer said.
Click to expand...
 
It’d be the end of one’s career as a White House reporter, but I am consumed with curiosity over what the president’s response would be if a reporter asked, “some have asserted that Congress’s refusal to investigate Sec. of State Clinton over the Benghazi deaths is evidence that Congress is biased in favor of Democrats. Would you agree with those people, Mr. President?”

I really think that his knowledge of politics before he took office is so limited that there is a good chance he would say yes.
 
Ladewig said:
It’d be the end of one’s career as a White House reporter, but I am consumed with curiosity over what the president’s response would be if a reporter asked, “some have asserted that Congress’s refusal to investigate Sec. of State Clinton over the Benghazi deaths is evidence that Congress is biased in favor of Democrats. Would you agree with those people, Mr. President?”

I really think that his knowledge of politics before he took office is so limited that there is a good chance he would say yes.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't understand the question. He'd only hear "Congress is biased in favor of Democrats" and answer accordingly.
 
Trump Tweets

So sad that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will never be able to see or understand the great promise of our Country. They can continue the Witch Hunt which has already cost $40M and been a tremendous waste of time and energy for everyone in America, or get back to work....

....But they really want a do-over! You can’t investigate and legislate simultaneously - it just doesn’t work that way. You can’t go down two tracks at the same time. Let Chuck, Nancy, Jerry, Adam and all of the rest finish playing their games....

....In the meantime, my Administration is achieving things that have never been done before, including unleashing perhaps the Greatest Economy in our Country’s history....

....Democrat leadership is tearing the United States apart, but I will continue to set records for the American People – and Nancy, thank you so much for your prayers, I know you truly mean it!
 
Stacko said:
The war was only a year old in 2004. 2005 seems to be the year when the lustre wore off and people woke up to it being a quagmire.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Good point. More importantly, Congress also stayed red.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Sure. And yet GW was reelected.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Good point, as Congress turned blue in 2006.
Click to expand...

I think even in politics certain things take time to... digest.

This is why I'm not a huge fan of following things like approval ratings in near real time, I don't think that kind of data is very useful.

Voters have very short intellectual attentions spans but very long... "gut" ones so to speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom