I’m assuming that the UK has put in for some sort of extradition request. Haven’t they? If so, I guess the question is can Biden shove her ass on a plane and get her over there.
Does immunity continue even after he has appointed a new ambassador?
The whole idea of complete diplomatic immunity is just insane when you think about it. Assuming youre dealing with another country with some rule of law
1 Like
I don’t know exactly how immunity is implemented in the UK, but the bit of reading I’ve done about how it applies in the US seems to indicate that, if the incident took place as part of your official duties, you maintain immunity, but, if it occurred outside of the scope of your duties you could be in jeopardy once you leave your post.
If making Cindy McCain ambassador to the UK will drive Trump nuts, I’m ok with it.
Brad Raffesberger for ambassador to Russia imo.
If that’s the ruling, then it would seem that they should have withdrawn the extradition request.
Raffe gotta stay put, he’s only into regular cheating, the next one is too likely gonna be a full blown psycho cheater
1 Like
As long as the extradition request is in place on Jan 21, I’d love for Biden to ship her ass back there. If she ends up having immunity, so be it.
Once he gets ousted then.
This is a premature article. A very small portion of the cabinet and major positions have been announced. Hopefully, there are roles for progressives when it’s all done. I’d be surprised if there was no role for Warren and Bernie, although offsetting the loss of their seats is an issue.
Also, Warren would have been a horrible choice for Treasury. She never gets confirmed and frankly isn’t qualified. Yellen is the single most qualified person to hold the role in US history.
4 Likes
Calling Yellen the most qualified person in history to be Sec. Treasury, is similar to calling Hillary Clinton the most qualified person ever to run for president. It’s only possible to grant truthfulness to that statement if we are defining “qualified” solely by looking at the titles on their resume rather than using “qualified” to mean that they’re actually capable of identifying and prioritizing the enactment of policies that help improve the lives of working people. The article states that Larry Summers and Paul Krugman are excited about the pick. I suppose if you’re a liberal, those sounds like solid endorsements. If you’re on the left, well not so much.
11 Likes
Make the case that Warren is unqualified to be Secretary of the Treasury.
It’s been a while since we’ve has a Secretary who wasn’t a CEO or who worked with private equity or hedge funds, at least not to the level where it gets mentioned in their Wikipedia article. Just having a Keynesian whose views aren’t shaped by time in the private sector seems like a plus.
1 Like
She will be the first person to ever hold the offices of The Treasury, the Fed and the Council of Economic Advisers. She is obviously qualified.
You are confusing qualified with likes her policy. Those are not the same.
She is also a good progressive choice, though.
Her skills are in commercial law and policy. Things like bankruptcy. I don’t think she is deeply trained or experienced in macroeconomics.
That being said, my comment should have clarified the issue with her is 95% she wouldn’t be confirmed and 5% her experience.
I specifically stated that if we are defining qualified to mean that they have the prerequisite titles on their resumes, then you are agreeing with me, on that point. Where we disagree is that this type of “qualification” means anything positive.
Once again, like when we discussed Bilken’s nomination, your use of “progressive choice” is…interesting. Progressives did not endorse or select Yellen. Progressives did not nominate her or approve of her. The article that you shared is not progressives singing her praises, rather they are stating something along the lines of…we’ve got a good amount of work to do if we want Yellen to even listen to us instead of doing the bidding of Wall Street.
This is not a progressive choice, unless we only compare her to whatever shortlist of centrists that Biden considered for the role.
2 Likes
I don’t have any argument with the claim that she would have a tough time getting confirmed, but you seem to believe she would be a bad choice if that were no problem.
Make the case that the Secretary of the Treasury ought to be an academic macroeconomist. What would be the problem with a competent administrator and politician who can assemble a good team?
It’s not that she would have a tough time being qualified. I think she is stone drawing dead. Republicans would burn the world down before putting America’s bank policy, bill payment and financial law enforcement in Warren’s hand.
Yellen, while not as progressive, is not as scary symbolically to republicans but she also has several fairly progressive ideas around fiscal policy.
I don’t have anything against treasury being run by a non economist. It usual is I think. I just don’t see it as a bad thing it will be run by one of the worlds most experienced macroeconomists.
I have no idea what you think a progressive choice is then other than approved by mysteryconman based on some unstated criteria.
Several well respected progressives are saying she is a great choice in the article.
1 Like
I’m not interested in arguing over whether she would be confirmed. I’m interested in arguing over Warren’s qualifications. I would say her experience makes her more qualified than Paul O’Neill being CEO of Alcoa or Steve Mnuchin working for Goldman Sachs and managing hedge funds.