Prosecution to use Caroline Ellison notes as evidence against SBF

[2stout]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

I don't see any point in bringing the bill to a Senate vote unless Trump's party has struck a deal with the Democrats.
We've already heard about a possible vote in July and then in August, and now they're publishing news about September.
I haven't seen anything new yet and don't think anything will change in September.

I agree.  The soonest I could see this passing is after the new congress is sworn in Jan 2027 and that's only if trump becomes a lame duck president.  The main way he could become a true lame duck president is if the dems take both houses of congress.  At that point I could see bi-partisan support because the repubs would then agree to conflicts of interests limits on the president as to create distance between themselves and a more increasingly unpopular, "powerless" president.  The fear would be diminished and it would be an opportunity for some to cast aside the anchor around their neck.

[zasad@]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

I don't see any point in bringing the bill to a Senate vote unless Trump's party has struck a deal with the Democrats.
We've already heard about a possible vote in July and then in August, and now they're publishing news about September.
I haven't seen anything new yet and don't think anything will change in September.

I agree.  The soonest I could see this passing is after the new congress is sworn in Jan 2027 and that's only if trump becomes a lame duck president.  The main way he could become a true lame duck president is if the dems take both houses of congress.  At that point I could see bi-partisan support because the repubs would then agree to conflicts of interests limits on the president as to create distance between themselves and a more increasingly unpopular, "powerless" president.  The fear would be diminished and it would be an opportunity for some to cast aside the anchor around their neck.

I don't expect there to be many Republicans in the Senate after the elections. If there are 47 Republicans in the Senate now, there could be 10 more, but no one wants one party to have more than 60 votes in the Senate, and if there are 67, the party can override a presidential veto.

[2stout]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

I don't see any point in bringing the bill to a Senate vote unless Trump's party has struck a deal with the Democrats.
We've already heard about a possible vote in July and then in August, and now they're publishing news about September.
I haven't seen anything new yet and don't think anything will change in September.

I agree.  The soonest I could see this passing is after the new congress is sworn in Jan 2027 and that's only if trump becomes a lame duck president.  The main way he could become a true lame duck president is if the dems take both houses of congress.  At that point I could see bi-partisan support because the repubs would then agree to conflicts of interests limits on the president as to create distance between themselves and a more increasingly unpopular, "powerless" president.  The fear would be diminished and it would be an opportunity for some to cast aside the anchor around their neck.

I don't expect there to be many Republicans in the Senate after the elections. If there are 47 Republicans in the Senate now, there could be 10 more, but no one wants one party to have more than 60 votes in the Senate, and if there are 67, the party can override a presidential veto.

This election year, 33 US Sentate seats will be up for grabs with dems defending 13 and republicans defending 20.  With 9 being solid dem and 14 being solid repub, I doubt any one party will walk away with at least 60 seats.  But then again, stranger things have happened as it's been less than 20 years since one party has had 60 Senate seats.

[zasad@]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

I don't see any point in bringing the bill to a Senate vote unless Trump's party has struck a deal with the Democrats.
We've already heard about a possible vote in July and then in August, and now they're publishing news about September.
I haven't seen anything new yet and don't think anything will change in September.

I agree.  The soonest I could see this passing is after the new congress is sworn in Jan 2027 and that's only if trump becomes a lame duck president.  The main way he could become a true lame duck president is if the dems take both houses of congress.  At that point I could see bi-partisan support because the repubs would then agree to conflicts of interests limits on the president as to create distance between themselves and a more increasingly unpopular, "powerless" president.  The fear would be diminished and it would be an opportunity for some to cast aside the anchor around their neck.

I don't expect there to be many Republicans in the Senate after the elections. If there are 47 Republicans in the Senate now, there could be 10 more, but no one wants one party to have more than 60 votes in the Senate, and if there are 67, the party can override a presidential veto.

This election year, 33 US Sentate seats will be up for grabs with dems defending 13 and republicans defending 20.  With 9 being solid dem and 14 being solid repub, I doubt any one party will walk away with at least 60 seats.  But then again, stranger things have happened as it's been less than 20 years since one party has had 60 Senate seats.

I also think that after these elections, no party will have 60 votes in the Senate, because politics is a big show, and the show must go on. Globally, we won't see any major changes in the Senate in January 2027.
The most interesting race will be for the presidential seat after Trump.

[2stout]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

I don't see any point in bringing the bill to a Senate vote unless Trump's party has struck a deal with the Democrats.
We've already heard about a possible vote in July and then in August, and now they're publishing news about September.
I haven't seen anything new yet and don't think anything will change in September.

I agree.  The soonest I could see this passing is after the new congress is sworn in Jan 2027 and that's only if trump becomes a lame duck president.  The main way he could become a true lame duck president is if the dems take both houses of congress.  At that point I could see bi-partisan support because the repubs would then agree to conflicts of interests limits on the president as to create distance between themselves and a more increasingly unpopular, "powerless" president.  The fear would be diminished and it would be an opportunity for some to cast aside the anchor around their neck.

I don't expect there to be many Republicans in the Senate after the elections. If there are 47 Republicans in the Senate now, there could be 10 more, but no one wants one party to have more than 60 votes in the Senate, and if there are 67, the party can override a presidential veto.

This election year, 33 US Sentate seats will be up for grabs with dems defending 13 and republicans defending 20.  With 9 being solid dem and 14 being solid repub, I doubt any one party will walk away with at least 60 seats.  But then again, stranger things have happened as it's been less than 20 years since one party has had 60 Senate seats.

I also think that after these elections, no party will have 60 votes in the Senate, because politics is a big show, and the show must go on. Globally, we won't see any major changes in the Senate in January 2027.
The most interesting race will be for the presidential seat after Trump.

Yes, politics is definitely a big show, esp during election season which is now.  The 2028 Presidential election is definitely going to be most interesting.  However, the 2028 Congressional elections will be most consequential in terms of impact on the newly elected President's agenda and plans.

[zasad@]

Yes, politics is definitely a big show, esp during election season which is now.  The 2028 Presidential election is definitely going to be most interesting.  However, the 2028 Congressional elections will be most consequential in terms of impact on the newly elected President's agenda and plans.

But are these plans ever going to change?
If things are bad in America, they'll make things even worse in other countries.
But China's economy is rapidly gaining momentum and is spreading to many countries, and the US has no way to combat this other than sanctions, which harm the US economy and its partners.

[2stout]

Yes, politics is definitely a big show, esp during election season which is now.  The 2028 Presidential election is definitely going to be most interesting.  However, the 2028 Congressional elections will be most consequential in terms of impact on the newly elected President's agenda and plans.

But are these plans ever going to change?
If things are bad in America, they'll make things even worse in other countries.
But China's economy is rapidly gaining momentum and is spreading to many countries, and the US has no way to combat this other than sanctions, which harm the US economy and its partners.

In the US, the election trends are cyclic.  Neither party is perfect, but they are not quite the same.  If you go back about 30 or so years to the 90's, you can see a typical pattern of repubs running up the deficit and worsening the economy and dems fixing it, then rinse and repeat.  This pattern will play out again in the 2028 election as a lot of things will need to be fixed.  Link for expanded reference- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

[zasad@]

Yes, politics is definitely a big show, esp during election season which is now.  The 2028 Presidential election is definitely going to be most interesting.  However, the 2028 Congressional elections will be most consequential in terms of impact on the newly elected President's agenda and plans.

But are these plans ever going to change?
If things are bad in America, they'll make things even worse in other countries.
But China's economy is rapidly gaining momentum and is spreading to many countries, and the US has no way to combat this other than sanctions, which harm the US economy and its partners.

In the US, the election trends are cyclic.  Neither party is perfect, but they are not quite the same.  If you go back about 30 or so years to the 90's, you can see a typical pattern of repubs running up the deficit and worsening the economy and dems fixing it, then rinse and repeat.  This pattern will play out again in the 2028 election as a lot of things will need to be fixed.  Link for expanded reference- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

Thirty years ago, the world was in a completely different situation, and now the US has a major economic competitor with a population of 1.5 billion. Look at their economy and education system. In China, people are taught to work hard from elementary school, so the US will lose out economically.

[2stout]

Yes, politics is definitely a big show, esp during election season which is now.  The 2028 Presidential election is definitely going to be most interesting.  However, the 2028 Congressional elections will be most consequential in terms of impact on the newly elected President's agenda and plans.

But are these plans ever going to change?
If things are bad in America, they'll make things even worse in other countries.
But China's economy is rapidly gaining momentum and is spreading to many countries, and the US has no way to combat this other than sanctions, which harm the US economy and its partners.

In the US, the election trends are cyclic.  Neither party is perfect, but they are not quite the same.  If you go back about 30 or so years to the 90's, you can see a typical pattern of repubs running up the deficit and worsening the economy and dems fixing it, then rinse and repeat.  This pattern will play out again in the 2028 election as a lot of things will need to be fixed.  Link for expanded reference- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

Thirty years ago, the world was in a completely different situation, and now the US has a major economic competitor with a population of 1.5 billion. Look at their economy and education system. In China, people are taught to work hard from elementary school, so the US will lose out economically.

True, but the pattern I mentioned still holds true to this day even though the world is in a completely different situation.

China is not just a US competitor but a world competitor that seems to be on a mission to be the leader in cutting edge technologies such as clean energy, EVs, and AI.  Rather than positioning themselves for a seat at the table, they are positioning themselves to set the table, esp when you also consider the stranglehold they have on rare earth elements.

[zasad@]

Yes, politics is definitely a big show, esp during election season which is now.  The 2028 Presidential election is definitely going to be most interesting.  However, the 2028 Congressional elections will be most consequential in terms of impact on the newly elected President's agenda and plans.

But are these plans ever going to change?
If things are bad in America, they'll make things even worse in other countries.
But China's economy is rapidly gaining momentum and is spreading to many countries, and the US has no way to combat this other than sanctions, which harm the US economy and its partners.

In the US, the election trends are cyclic.  Neither party is perfect, but they are not quite the same.  If you go back about 30 or so years to the 90's, you can see a typical pattern of repubs running up the deficit and worsening the economy and dems fixing it, then rinse and repeat.  This pattern will play out again in the 2028 election as a lot of things will need to be fixed.  Link for expanded reference- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

Thirty years ago, the world was in a completely different situation, and now the US has a major economic competitor with a population of 1.5 billion. Look at their economy and education system. In China, people are taught to work hard from elementary school, so the US will lose out economically.

True, but the pattern I mentioned still holds true to this day even though the world is in a completely different situation.

China is not just a US competitor but a world competitor that seems to be on a mission to be the leader in cutting edge technologies such as clean energy, EVs, and AI.  Rather than positioning themselves for a seat at the table, they are positioning themselves to set the table, esp when you also consider the stranglehold they have on rare earth elements.

I don't disagree with your opinion. There's a very old joke about how, in a country as free as America, there are only two parties that wield political power.

I know there are other parties in the US, but those parties simply don't have a chance of winning elections due to the high administrative barriers.