ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Program Note

[ Posted Thursday, November 30th, 2017 – 18:58 PST ]

Sorry, but there will be no new column today, as I had to take time to deal with jury duty. The good news, however, is that I was not selected and thus will be able to write a Friday Talking Points column tomorrow. So there's that to look forward to.

If I had had the time to write today, there's an interesting article over at fivethirtyeight.com that would have formed the basis of what I would have written. Long story short, the current GOP tax cut bill is not only less popular with the public than all previous tax cut bills (going back to the 1980s), but actually less popular than two tax hikes. That is a stunning level of unpopularity, and should put to the test the Republican thinking that all they have to do is pass a tax cut (any tax cut) and their base voters will reward them next year at the ballot box. Again, that's what I would have written about if I had had the time.

So my apologies again for the lack of new column today, and I'll see you all back here tomorrow.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

63 Comments on “Program Note”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, so when even the most ardent Republicans and/or 45 supporters on this board repeatedly duck defending this horrific tax plan (unless you are rich and have no decency) you know that they really know this is just a payback to the billionaire anti-American donors from the right wing.

    This is nothing about "good for America" this is all about "I'm alright, I've got a private jet to escape to my island when it all gets horrible".

    Republicans should be ashamed of themselves - either for being self centered or for being deliberately ignorant. This is not good for our country in so many ways.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    The "rich" most of you know - the top doctors, lawyers, etc., are "essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%". This group have up to $5M in investment assets - wow.

    Not really.

    $5M, if you want some security and be able to leave a nice inheritance to your kids equates to $200-$300K/year plus another $40K in Social Security - this is basically a good income in the Bay Area, NY, or other wealthy areas where most of these people live.

    And remember, most of the top 1% don't even have $5M - $2-3M is far more common, resulting in an income of $150K or so. Not bad, but remember 99% of people are living on less.

    And those on "defined benefits" are living in a little fantasy land. When voters have to choose between paying pensions for ex-cops to golf vs. active cops addressing rising crime, all those cushy pensions will be squeezed. We see this already e.f. in Wisconsin.

    All these plans also count on inflation being tame for decades. This is not likely.

    We need to be raising taxes when things are going well for he country and investing in the future. This is the ant and the grasshopper story, and in case you haven't twigged, this tax plan is a classic "grasshopper" one.

    Wake up people. Please.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:
  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    And an update: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager_2014.html

    This is my world - I sold real-time risk management software to capital market institutions for many years and I know these people. This is what I hear by the 1% to 0.5% earning less than $2M/year - they know who the really wealthy are and their grip on our political system.

    Don has the right diagnosis, but the wrong treatment - his error is in the amount - limiting every American to $10,000/year and eliminating corporate money would solve most of our problems.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex set of laws and exemptions from laws and taxes has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes.

    Quote from the article linked in [3] above.

    Sorry to harp on about this for the last few days, but we really need to understand what is going on with this tax bill. It is important that our politicians represent all of us, not just a small percentage - this can lead to a breakdown in what makes America great.

  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Your quote [5] clearly implies that the author (and obviously you yourself) feel that it is somehow illegitimate for people to want to "protect and increase their wealth", for gawdsake!

    The only rational way to justify that opinion is to believe that those who possess wealth could not possibly have acquired it by means of hard work, the fruits of which so enriched the lives of their fellow men that they cheerfully parted with their own hard-earned $ to do business with them.

    We're obviously back to the standard liberal dogma that holds that people only acquire wealth by three means, either 1), overcharging their customers, or 2), underpaying their employees, or 3), being too greedy to happily share the fruits of their labors with those whose labors are less fruitful. Utter nonsense.

    Indeed, THAT is the very attitude that "can lead to a breakdown of what makes America great".

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So the Joint Committee on Taxation report came out yesterday, and its conclusions were devastating. Republicans had high hopes for it, since it used 'dynamic scoring' to paint the rosiest, most trickle-downey scenario possible, but still ended with a massive deficit prediction: a trillion dollar hole blown in the budget.

    FiveThirtyEight reports that this tax bill is now more unpopular than was Clinton's tax hike in 1993. Can Republicans pass this and still avoid the sort of electoral carnage that ensued in 1994 for Clinton?

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki [6]: I'm no economist, and I'll let Neil defend himself (since he's better at it anyway), and only note that you seem to be confusing his critique of the set of laws that we presently have on the books, which even Republicans have criticized for being loophole-laden, with classical and common critiques of capitalism itself.

    But capitalism isn't itself as easy to define as you seem to believe: there are light years difference between the Fed and the corner deli, between the street vendor and the money launderer, the billionaire's accountant and the Waffle House waitress. Freedom and fairness can be suppressed for the most banal and common of reasons, or found to have been undermined by the decisions of those at the very top, as happened in the last recession.

    I discern that you want all of the actors in this churning economy to be motivated by the purest of intentions, but that's just delusional.

    Corporations are more akin to Terminators than to humans: they have humanoid reactions, but no souls. They are capable of the greatest callousness without even meaning to - just ask the victims of the Ford Motor Company which, back in the 1970's, somehow decided that it was more cost effective to pay off wrongful death claims than to fix the gas tank placement problem that was causing their Escorts to explode.

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm sorry, that story was about the Ford Pinto, not the Escort. Got my cars mixed up.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, the POLLS say that this tax bill is bad and ya'all lap it up....

    I am constantly amazed that ya'all STILL put yer faith in polls.. :D

    Well, McCain's on board with the tax legislation, so it's going to pass..

    And ya'all can't complain because ya'all LOVE McCain.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ANOTHER heavy Democrat Donor is accused of raping a minor...

    Democratic Donor Accused of Sexually Assaulting 17-Year-Old Model in 1991
    http://freebeacon.com/culture/democratic-donor-accused-sexually-assaulting-17-year-old-model-1991/

    What *IS* it with Democrats???

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here ya go, Balthasar...

    Writer Jenny Lumet: Russell Simmons Sexually Violated Me (Guest Column)
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/writer-jenny-lumet-russell-simmons-sexually-violated-me-guest-column-1062934

    There is another scumbag Democrat you can defend by trashing his victim...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here ya go, Balthasar...

    Writer Jenny Lumet: Russell Simmons Sexually Violated Me (Guest Column)
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/writer-jenny-lumet-russell-simmons-sexually-violated-me-guest-column-1062934

    There is another scumbag Democrat you can defend by trashing his victim...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so we know that Conyers is on his way out...

    Democratic outcry on sex abuse threatens Franken's future
    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/congressional/democratic-outcry-on-sex-abuse-threatens-frankens-future-20171130.html

    And now it looks like Al FrakIt's writing is on the wall as well....

    Not a good time for the Demcorat Party, eh??

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, people.. It's gotten so bad that the Democrat Party may be forced to become The Sexual Harrasment, Intercourse and Tittygrabbing Party...

    The SHIT Party.....

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your quote [5] clearly implies that the author (and obviously you yourself) feel that it is somehow illegitimate for people to want to "protect and increase their wealth", for gawdsake!

    Then you've completely misunderstood both the article and my "feelings".

    I'm trying to point out that there is a class of people who can buy politicians wholesale in this country. Most of them make their money on Wall St. or leveraging instruments created by Wall St. They use this vast power to create a legal framework that tilts the market in their favor - remember when Romney released his tax returns and we discovered he was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary?

    I'll state once more, then I'll start linking back to prior comments, that I'm all for capitalism, so please stop deflecting.

    I notice you still are not explaining why you support the tax bill.

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    The SHIT Party.....

    As opposed to the "Don't give a S#!T party"?

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar-
    You may have come up with the solution to all the sexual harassment problems- EXPLODING ESCORTS.

    If the escorts explode after use then they can't resurface years later.

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Some interesting charts on the matter of inheritance and the "money" pump to the top 1%

    http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/reality-wealthy-inherit-ungodly-sums-money

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    As opposed to the "Don't give a S#!T party"?

    Yea, it IS a quandary, eh?? :D

    That's why I am glad I am not enslaved by Party ideology.. :D

    That's why I am ecstatic that we have a POTUS that is, for all intents and purposes not of EITHER Party...

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's why I am glad I am not enslaved by Party ideology.. :D

    You aren't deluding anybody Michale. Except maybe yourself. You are so Republican that at a Moore rally in Alabama they'd point you out as the "extreme right-winger over there".

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are so Republican that at a Moore rally in Alabama they'd point you out as the "extreme right-winger over there".

    I know that's what you WANT to believe....

    But the facts say otherwise..

    [18] -

    OK, that photo of the guy I like to refer to as "RNC PR BS" (without the vowels, in other words) is freakin' hilarious!

    I don't say this to you often, but this proves you have a true independent heart (and not, as most assume, the dark heart of an uber-Republican). If you were just a GOP stooge, you never would have posted that link...

    Heh.
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/28/program-note-53/

    Your ideologically based opinion??

    Or the facts...

    Hmmmmmmmmmm

    Which one should we believe.... :D

  23. [23] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthazar [8]

    "Freedom and fairness can be supressed by the most banal of reasons, or be undermined by the decisions of those at the very top, as in the last recession."

    And, "You want ALL actors to be motivated by the purest of intentions."

    Dead wrong! I harbor no illusions whatsoever about the intentions/motivations of my fellow men. There is only ONE meaningful motivation "in our churning economy", and that is selfishness (concern for self), aka GREED!! And, believe it or not, I would not have it any other way, because that's how the system maximizes the material welfare of mankind, so long as competition prevails in the marketplace. (The old "invisible hand" thing.

    And you need to remember that "the decision of those at the very top, that brought about the last recession" was to attempt to move tens of thousands of poor people into the middle class thru the medium of home-ownership, which was implemented by loaning $bazillions to poor people to pay for those houses, in the belief that since the prices of houses had not declined for over 75 years, that they would never decline again.

    And that is NOT the type of decision one would normally expect from greedy capitalists "at the top", that was a decision that would normally come (and did come) from the likes of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and I presume, you yourself.

    And BTW, nothing I have written anywhere was intended in support of, or agains the Rep tax cut being currently debated. I mostly write about economics at the theoretical level.

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    And you need to remember that "the decision of those at the very top, that brought about the last recession" was to attempt to move tens of thousands of poor people into the middle class thru the medium of home-ownership, which was implemented by loaning $bazillions to poor people to pay for those houses, in the belief that since the prices of houses had not declined for over 75 years, that they would never decline again.

    And that is NOT the type of decision one would normally expect from greedy capitalists "at the top", that was a decision that would normally come (and did come) from the likes of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and I presume, you yourself.

    OK, so Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and, I presume, Balthazar, basically had nothing to do with triggering the mortgage crisis.

    Wall St. is always looking to create financial instrument on top of the largest wealth source or revenue stream it can. It is a bit like the answer a bank robber gave when asked by he robbed banks - that is where the money is.

    Wall St. also discovered that they could create complex instruments with tranches that matched customer's needs - although even they were happily surprised that they managed to get the lowest return tranches off their books thanks to AIG.

    The demand for these instruments, and particularly the fees from the creation of them, tapped into the greed on Wall St and created a demand for more and more mortgages to slide and dice into CDS, etc. Even when mortgage lenders were creating no doc mortgages, that wasn't enough so we got CD-squared, and even more esoteric instruments that were snapped up as fast as they could be created.

    At the same time, interest rates were dropping and money was becoming cheaper and cheaper. This poured gasoline on the problem in two ways:

    1. The returns from the mortgaged backed CDS, etc. were even more attractive than traditional interest rate based products
    2. Leveraging became even cheaper so was increased

    Thus we had more money based on weaker base mortgages and, as you stated, an assumption that all the mortgages could be rolled over because house prices would continue to go up.

    However easier mortgages were just artificial steroids to the property market, propelling it well beyond fundamental values, setting up the "black swan" of a nationwide decrease in property values.

    Oops. Bad situation, but unless Balthazar et al. were working on Wall St. they had little to do with the crisis. Greed, and the irrationality of the frenzied in a pyramid scheme where they are hoping to get out rich before it all collapses are to blame.

    Greed is a natural human driver, and like most things is good in moderation and bad in excess. It needs to be kept under control. At the moment we are letting it get out of control, and at this time the most obvious indicator is the tax bill.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DP7IYJWU8AAdBaD.jpg

    And the NFL continues it's slide into oblivion!!! :D

    Score another point for President Donald Trump!! :D

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Anybody care about the NFL?

    Me neither.

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "I mostly write about economics at the theoretical level."

    So what is your economic theory? Theories make predictions! What are you predicting?

    Your posts are doctrinal polemics and nothing more.

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I fully realize that nothing anybody on this forum did caused the housing bubble to burst and the bad mortgages to default, but I know that you, Balthazar, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were totally in support of the concept of helping poor people take advantage of the chance at homeownership when it looked like a sure thing with no possibility of downside.

    And I admit the Wall St types piled onto the bandwagon with all their esoteric financial instruments, but those Wall St types were just doing what they're are there to do, and that is to grease the wheels of the system that allows investors to earn a return on their savings while simultaneously allowing poor people to become homeowners.

    But remember, had the housing bubble not been created and had the millions of unqualified borrowers not defaulted on their mortgages, those hated 'esoteric financial instruments' would have been totally successful.

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    Absolutely correct on the "doctrinal polemics" thing. Liberals all are sorely defficient on the "doctrinal polemics" thing, which is why they don't understand how the real world actually functions.

    By 'theoretical', I had in mind the discussion of how the overall economy actually works, as opposed to specific topics such as the Rep tax cut. I would rarely to never, offer any 'new theories' in an attempt to forecast or predict anything. You want predictions, see a psychic.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anybody care about the NFL?

    Me neither.

    Hysterical Left Wingers sure cared about the NFL when Trump bitch-slapped them down..

    Now that Trump is winning, ya'all feign indifference.. :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Anybody care about the NFL?"

    Being a Giant fan since Fran Tarknenton was a Giant I do not think that now is a good time to comment on my current feelings about the NFL.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being a Giant fan since Fran Tarknenton was a Giant I do not think that now is a good time to comment on my current feelings about the NFL.

    "I know, right!?"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

    I have been a die hard JAGS fan... It's hard to skip their games... Especially since they are now in first place in the division...

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I bet you can't wait until next year when you have Eli Manning as your quarterback.

    Maybe the Giants are planning another Kerry Collins move for next year by signing Kaepernick in the off-season.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    but I know that you, Balthazar, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were totally in support of the concept of helping poor people take advantage of the chance at homeownership when it looked like a sure thing with no possibility of downside.

    What are you talking about?

    How do you know what I'm "totally in support of"?

    I support raising the total wealth of all Americans, while rolling back some of the inequality that has grown in our society. Don't you?

    In many countries renting is far more common than it is here - Germany for example has only 51.9% home ownership yet all my German friends don't look at renting as an impediment to wealth.

    Please ask me what my opinions are and I'll provide them.

    Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I bet you can't wait until next year when you have Eli Manning as your quarterback.

    The JAGS have been down hill since they got rid of Brunnel, Coughlin, Taylor and Jones-Drew....

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Ah... December 1, and winter has indeed arrived. Who knew? ;)

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki [28]:I know that you, Balthazar, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were totally in support of the concept of helping poor people take advantage of the chance at home ownership when it looked like a sure thing with no possibility of downside.

    ...those Wall St types were just doing what they're are there to do..

    Which was ultimately to try to blame Frank, Dodd and others for their mistakes.

    Frank, for his part, points out that his district was filled with folks who rent, not buy their housing. "My [advocacy] was for more multifamily rental housing," Frank points out. "One of the things I worked on was the Low Income Housing Tax Credit for multifamily housing for low-income people.."

    When the Wall Street Journal tried in 2009 to move this blame-shifting onto their editorial pages, Frank shot back:

    "I am used to having my views severely distorted by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board - in contrast to the accurate representation that its reporters present. But the opening of the editorial on December 3rd doesn’t distort - it gets the truth absolutely backwards. In short, the Journal’s assertion that I have “spent [my] career encouraging mortgage loans to people who can’t repay them,” is not only entirely inaccurate; it blames me for policies that the Journal has itself defended."

    Neil does a good job in post [24] laying out the actual causes of the banking crisis that led to the Great Recession. But he goes too easy, in my estimation, on the Bush Administration, which had virtually pulled all of the cops off of the Wall St. beat, the SEC and other regulators relying instead on companies 'self-reporting' financial irregularities.

    So its entirely understandable that, following the meltdown in 2007, Republicans looked for as many non-republican scapegoats as they could find. This included blaming the victims themselves (for buying houses they couldn't afford), ACORN (!), and the Clintons (because they're the Clintons).

    Neil's point at the end of [24] is one that should be amplified: here we go again.

    In fact, I can confidently report that a year from now Republicans will be again blaming Democrats for shortfalls in the budget, and for the country's massive debt, claiming that is Democratic intransigence on entitlements, not GOP tax irresponsibility, that has caused the problem.

    Do you deny that?

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-29

    More glib BS. You seem to be here to sow discord. I'm not going to help you.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    More glib BS. You seem to be here to sow discord. I'm not going to help you.

    Funny how ANYONE who does toe STIG's line is simply here for nefarious reasons.. :^/

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Flynn Pleads Guilty!

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    5

    Sorry to harp on about this for the last few days, but we really need to understand what is going on with this tax bill.

    Harping!? Please keep them coming. You are exactly right about the redefining of the CPI and the pathetic "middle class" tax cut.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Flynn Pleads Guilty!

    So???

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP Says It Has Enough Votes to Pass Senate Tax Bill
    Republican leaders say party has 50 votes after wavering senators signal their support

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-tax-bill-picks-up-support-after-delay-over-deficit-fears-1512140345

    :D

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    So???

    That was when YA'ALL allege that President Trump committed obstruction by telling Comey that General Flynn was an honorable man, a patriot who did great things for his country and has suffered enough by being summarily fired. As such, the President expressed a "hope" that the FBI Director could find it in his heart to not pile more humiliation on this fine American...

    Michale, June 16th, 2017

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/15/senate-votes-to-take-power-away-from-trump/#comment-102965

    So that.

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    And ...

    Mueller, a loyal Republican, can go ANYWHERE and investigate ANYTHING...

    That's the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge..

    This could boomerang SOOO bad on the Dims and, considering all the furious back-pedaling that the Dims are doing on impeachment and the Russia/Trump connection, it's more than likely that this WILL boomerang on the Dims...

    You ask me if I think that Mueller is going after the Dims...

    How's that going for ya?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100290

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    So???

    Still nothing to do with Trump or Russia..

    So I made a couple predictions and they were wrong..

    If you REALLY want to compare wrong predictions, I am all for that.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, unlike ya'all, I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong. :D

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Still nothing to do with Trump or Russia..

    If you wish that upon a star, it might come true.

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    So???

    Still nothing to do with Trump or Russia..

    Wrong again. :)

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts???

    Any facts at all???

    No???

    Didna think so.... :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01/doj-files-arrest-warrant-for-illegal-immigrant-acquitted-in-kate-steinle-case.html

    YES!!!

    Scumbag ain't gonna get off the hook THAT easy!!!

  52. [52] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It's gonna be like Black Friday!

    Panicked White House Staff, looking for the deal of a lifetime, log jammed in the doorway to the Special Prosecutor's office...3 Stooges style.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Panicked White House Staff, looking for the deal of a lifetime, log jammed in the doorway to the Special Prosecutor's office...3 Stooges style.

    I see Stig just woke up from another wet dream... :D

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Flynn cut a good deal - he pleaded to just one count. He must have had some good stuff to get that, and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. James Comey comes to mind.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Flynn cut a good deal - he pleaded to just one count. He must have had some good stuff to get that, and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. James Comey comes to mind.

    Facts???

    Any facts at all???

    Nope.. Still nothing but wishful thinking...

    It reminds me of the time the media said there was going to be a bunch of "bombshells" from testimony and it turned out to be a big nothing burger..

    More of the same here.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Prosecutors generally don't trade sweet plea deals for nothing. Flynn had to have testimony regarding someone further up on the organizational chart than himself just to cut the deal.

    To put it a different way, in The Godfather, part II, no one thought that Pentangeli cut his deal with prosecutors to testify about the street punks who worked for him, did they?

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Any facts at all???

    Yes.

    No???

    Yes.

    Didna think so.... :D

    The fact that you "didna think" and seem frequently incapable of doing so are obvious to anyone paying the least bit attention... no need to keep reminding the group that you don't think. :)

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    Prosecutors generally don't trade sweet plea deals for nothing. Flynn had to have testimony regarding someone further up on the organizational chart than himself just to cut the deal.

    I agree. I've said all along that ew just need to give Mueller the time to see if there is anything there, and if there is, prosecute.

    What is interesting is that Flynn didn't hold out hope for a pardon à la Arapaio. Either he knew 45 wouldn't give him one, or they had something on him in NY or DC where Federal pardons don't apply.

    He has most likely cut a deal to get his son off the hook. Now we have Manafort and Flynn inside the prosecutors office telling everything they know.

    I'm surprised at the speed this is moving - just one year ago today Flynn was committing crimes, now he has pled guilty. Mueller is going at a good clip.

    This will probably throw CW a curve ball for FTPs.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Flynn cut a good deal - he pleaded to just one count. He must have had some good stuff to get that, and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. James Comey comes to mind.

    Flynn's son comes to mind as well.

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    58

    What is interesting is that Flynn didn't hold out hope for a pardon à la Arapaio. Either he knew 45 wouldn't give him one, or they had something on him in NY or DC where Federal pardons don't apply.

    Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

    So... no pardons by Trump.

    He has most likely cut a deal to get his son off the hook. Now we have Manafort and Flynn inside the prosecutors office telling everything they know.

    They don't need to offer Manafort a proffer.

    I'm surprised at the speed this is moving - just one year ago today Flynn was committing crimes, now he has pled guilty. Mueller is going at a good clip.

    Winter is here. :)

  61. [61] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [38]

    Sincere thanks for the compliment. I'm genuinely pleased to hear that you find MY BS to be "glib".

    In the process of wading through such a shitstorm of borderline unintelligable BS like you libs burden Chris's readers with, I was certain that a little glib BS would gladden your hearts.

    Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the process of wading through such a shitstorm of borderline unintelligable BS like you libs burden Chris's readers with, I was certain that a little glib BS would gladden your hearts.

    Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Yesterday's Son

    :D

    NOW you have gone and done it.. Yer now going to get blocked by TS because he can't handle differing opinions..

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm surprised at the speed this is moving - just one year ago today Flynn was committing crimes, now he has pled guilty. Mueller is going at a good clip.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.. :D

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]