Euphemisms
Righty: Euphemisms? They’re not for me. Like all hardworking, God-fearing, pro-life Christians who support family values and the Patriot Act, I favor unvarnished language that tells it straight.
Lefty: Euphemisms? A truly diverse, gender-neutral, pro-choice, humanist society (like the kind we advocate) has no need to hide its progressive values behind deceptive terminology.
The New Moderate:
Euphemisms are elaborate verbal disguises for ideas that your opponents might find unpalatable. They conceal your political agenda behind soft-focus phrases and hazy idealism. Who among us could be opposed to “family values,” “diversity” or “affirmative action”? Would anyone other than a suicide bomber object to a “pro-life” philosophy? Or “pro-choice,” for that matter?
By using euphemisms instead of hot-potato terminology, ideologues like to think they can sneak their controversial ideas past their opponents’ radar. Why talk about reverse discrimination when you can say “affirmative action”? Why use ugly terms like “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” when “pro-choice” and “pro-life” sound so much sweeter? Nearly everyone hates atheists, but who would deny the renaissance appeal of “humanists”?
The problem with euphemisms is, of course, their fundamental dishonesty. No enlightened moderate should tolerate such wanton abuse of the language in the service of extremist agendas (or even moderate agendas). Before you know it, the government will start referring to unprovoked wars as exercises in “spreading freedom.” They could even pass a bill to curtail our civil liberties and call it “the Patriot Act” or some such nonsense. Keep your eyes open for clever euphemisms and treat them as a deadly menace.
Summary: Euphemisms are calculated to conceal potentially unpopular extremist political agendas. They’re fundamentally dishonest and should be sniffed out by all thinking moderates.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Wrong. Properly used, and not to merely obfuscate, euphemisms can ease the reader into a subject less jarringly and without causing instant animosity.
For instance, I could have replied this way to your viewpoint instead of the strident “Wrong”, above: “While I agree with your main points I ……… , blah, blah”. Telling you in a nicer way that you are an idiot and trying to score points. In football its called a misdirection play .
I know what you mean, but I’m not sure those are real euphemisms; they’re simply tactful linguistic sweeteners, comparable to the way a well-bred Southern woman might address you as “honey” or “dearie” when she actually has a bone to pick with you. A real euphemism is an invented word or phrase designed to slip an unpalatable concept past the opposition to further an agenda. To me, that’s what euphemisms are all about: promoting agendas on the sly.
I agree.
President Barack Obama said Friday that he was humbled by the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
Humbled: embarrassed and pissed.
You know, I have to backtrack a little on my definition of euphemisms. Some euphemisms are simply polite verbal evasions of a harder truth, like saying that Uncle Ned “passed away” or that your unmarried sister is “in the family way.” No real agendas here; just the understandable need to soften the news. But the agenda-driven euphemisms (“affirmative action,” “pro-choice,” “pro-life,” “Patriot Act,” etc.) are my pet peeve. Orwell was on to them when he wrote “1984.”
Is carefully studying, reevaluating our position, politician speak for I changed my mind and how do I get out of this? Example: Obama’s possible flip flop on the Afghanistan war. Also, they are not taxes, they are mandates.
Yeah, those are good examples, too. I guess they fall somewhere in the middle of the euphemism offensiveness scale: not as harmless as “passed away,” and not quite as awful (at least to me) as “affirmative action.” Like all euphemisms, they’re a form of positive spin.
Euphemisms, for people without the Testicles to take stuff as is!!!
Focus: We hope the government doesn’t do it too much to us.
Many of these carry negative implications, and their own negative counterparts. “Pro-life” assumes everyone else is pro-death, that being in favour of abortions means you actively want to kill foetuses; “pro-choice” has the connotation that anti-abortionists want to limit freedom, never mind that the foetus has no choice. Or how about “freethinkers” (used by anti-religionists to show that people of faith are somehow incapable of thinking for themselves, just blindly following tradition). “Progressive” is used to show that any idea the left-wingers don’t agree with is backward and stupid.
Then there’s the outright negative ones- “hate” doesn’t mean “malicious intent” anymore, it means “against a certain protected class” or “does not agree with the views of minority interest group” (especially when said interest group is the gay activist one). Likewise, any socio-economic view left of the Tea Party ideal is “socialist”.
Can we suppose that any use of abstracts like “freedom”, “equality”, “justice” to further a given agenda are likewise euphemisms? Or “rights” when all it means is extra privileges? Or “free speech” that is not ideas expressed in words? Or “free markets” which are freee only for big corporations?
Then there’s “intellectual property” which really refers to a usually time-limited temporary monopoly/rights package?
And, in the UK, “National Insurance” is not a tax, nor is the “TV license”, no sir.
I like your fog clearing (another one), or anti-BS in some circles.
EVOLVED. Ain’t that a great one, especially from the great orator when he is “speaking from behind”, another new one if you change speaking to leading. Lest we forget Republicans, how about all those no voes on Background Checks which evolved from yeses to nos.
Real Conservatives don’t like tRump
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/erick-erickson-on-leaving-fox-news-was-increasingly-more-uncomfortable-to-be-there/
The Right Wing Trump Media Is #&*@&*!
Have you ever noticed that ALL the media seems to be reading from the same talking points ?
Have you noticed that ALL the media seems to have a problem with mysogyny ?
Xenophobia is the fear of that which is foreign and strange.
The left. the media and you are “xenophobic” with respect to Trump.
Why the NYFD thinks Trump is an Asshole.
There was a fire at Trump Tower Saturday that left one man dead and five fire fighters injured. Not only weren’t the residential floors of the building retro fitted with safety sprinklers, but on arriving the firemen weren’t sure what floor was on fire.
The four alarm fire was reported to be on the ‘50th floor,’ and though the tower was built with 58 floors, Trump renumbered the top residential floor (where he resides) as the 68th, and all other residential floors lowered accordingly. The first 19 commercial floors are numbered correctly, but then there’s a 10 floor gap: the 11th floor is numbered the 21st Floor.
DunceTrump took the fire as an opportunity to boast that the structure was ‘well built.’ He omitted mentioning he was too cheap to install sprinklers. Or offer condolences to the man killed, or the injured fire fighters.
All of NYC has known Trump is an a——– for at least 20 years now. That is why I, a registered Rep., voted against him and for Hillary who I abhor (my first Dem vote in many years)
I hope the rest of the country wises up before he makes the Washington Monument into the Trump Tower Phallic Tower.
A good read on the gun culture: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/magazine/gun-culture-is-my-culture-and-i-fear-for-what-it-has-become.html
Lets see those on the left identify something as a “culture” so that they can protect it from discrimination.
Then they identify it as a culture so that they can discriminate against it ?
So if you do not like “gun culture” you can regulate the crap out of it ?
What if you do not like the mysoginistic, homophobic Islamic culture ?
Can we regulate the crap out of that ?
What if you don’t like pedophile culture?
You shouldn’t legislate against that?
Peodophiles use force to violate the rights of others.
Your fake analogies are pretty bad.
You do not seem to be able to distinguish between you are free to do whatever you wish with your own person, or that of someone else who has voluntarily agreed and you are free to impose your will on others by force.
The social contract is about government punishing the initiation of force – violating rights, of another.
I would be surprised if Trump was personally involved in the decisions you cite.
Regardless, the building either conforms to code or the owner gets cited.
I suspect you will find there were no code violations.
Sprinkler requirements for tall building are minimal.
Most people suffer delusions that sprinklers are an effective means of combating fires.
They aren’t.
They add substantial cost – and for large buildings substantial mass, which as you should have observed in the WTC is a serious problem. They have a very narrow window of effectiveness.
In the event of a fire they introduce steam. A human can endure dry temperatures of up to 500F for very short periods of time while escaping a fire. Steam will scald you to death and is impassable.
“I would be surprised if Trump was personally involved in the decisions you cite.”
I would be SHOCKED if you didn’t reflexively robot-like kiss Trump’s butt. As usual, you speak from your anus.
Contrary to your buttocks smooching, Trump retro-installed sprinklers in his building near the UN and bragged that it was safer. And he PERSONALLY lobbied against the law making them mandatory.
https://nypost.com/2018/04/08/trump-battled-fire-sprinkler-laws-for-city-high-rises-in-the-90s/
I speak from real world experience.
As I recall you have had some of the same and forgotten
I was in the upper management of a 50+ business.
In fact it was an architectural practice – so even the issue of sprinkler’s arose.
We designed and built building with sprinkler’s and without.
We went to a fair amount of trouble to avoid them. They are expensive, costly to maintain, rarely actually work as intended, and they have a very small window in which they are effective – and that is if they work.
In most small fires – sprinklers cause more damage than they prevent.
If they fail they introduce water which in the event of a fire becomes steam which is orders of magnitude more lethal than dry air at the same temperature.
Sprinklers have so many problems that building codes rarely require them.
But insurance companies actually like them – because they protect BUILDINGS.
When people die in fires it is pretty much always because they could not get out.
Good egress and warning are by far the most important factors in saving lives.
This BTW also applies to school shootings and is part fo the reason they have become more “deadly”. Much older schools had doors to the outside from nearly every classroom as well as operable windows. Modern schools have far tighter control of egress and inoperable windows.
Sprinklers were an issue in nearly every building we designed and created.
Avoiding them was an important task.
Owners do not want sprinklers.
But insurance companies do.
Further some ill informed code enforcement officers also do.
The codes rarely demand them.
But code officials often demand things that are not required by code.
Quite frequently code officials are given whatever they demand because delays in a project or bad relations with code enforcement are more costly than feeding some code officials ego.
My business was once actually sued by a client for failing to design in a sprinkler system that was not required by code, and which the client in writing told us to avoid.
Regardless, I rarely participated in sprinkler decisions. These were made by the designers and architects who worked for me, in conjunction with the staff of the facility being built.
The likelyhood of Trump or any other owner participating in design decisions regarding sprinklers is extremely low. If they become involved at all it is only when things go wrong.
In my own business I have almost never participated in the decision to include a sprinkler system.
But I have been a part of every single instance where there was a later conflict over sprinklers.
If Trump retro installed Sprinklers – the most likely REAL reason was insurance savings.
Retro-active building codes are unconstitutional.
Bragging that he installed sprinklers to make the building safer does not surprise me.
Nor does it make it true.
Nor does lobbying against laws requiring sprinklers.
You see conflicts that are not there.
With very few exceptions buildings are sprinklered because of insurance companies not codes or customer demand.
But once the decision is made to include them, any wise business will try to make them into a feature.
At the same time any wise business will continue to oppose stupid laws.
You do not seem to understand business.
Businesses profit by providing customers the greatest possible value at the lowest possible cost.
A huge part of this is giving customers what they want.
But sometimes it involves persuading customers to want what you can give.
It always involves resisting doing what customers do not wish to pay for.
To the extent there are any contradictions – those are in the wants of customers – not the businesses that serve them.
Just to be clear nothing in anything you have provided says that Trump was personally involved in decisions regarding installing sprinklers in specific building.
Just a I was never involved in the decision to include (or exclude) sprinklers in any buildings my firm designed, While I was ALWAYS involved if the issue arose LATER.
The people who work to solve problems are almost never the ones who created them.
London stabbings: 300 extra police deployed on streets to tackle spike in knife crime
“Hundreds of additional police officers have been deployed on the streets of London this weekend in areas of the capital worst affected by the spike in violent crime.
The rising wave of knife crime saw six stabbings in 90 minutes in the capital on Thursday, with a 13-year-old left fighting for his life after an attack in Newham, east London. Three teenage boys, a 13-year-old and two 16-year-olds, have been charged over the incident.
The spate of knife crime has meant the number of suspected murders in London in March was higher than that of New York.”
Very interesting in light of the fact that it is illegal to carry anything but a small pocket knife in the UK. Anyone caught carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3″ or does not fold is guilty of a felony subject to 4 years in prison and unlimited fines.
Many US States have similar laws that exclude knives of various descriptions; and I believe there’s a Federal knife law that prohibits switch blade knives.
And making lethal knives illegal to carry, with more stop and frisk as they’re about to initiate with more cops on the beat in England, will reduce the number of those knives carried by the young Britons who seem to be using them against each other.
Dave’s argument that disarming will make rape victims more vulnerable is nonsense; the opposite is likely; many rape victims are threatened by knife carrying rapists; those potential rapists will be more wary of carrying them.
Sory, this libertarian does not accept “stop and frisk” just because your WWB. But the UK does not have our rights, so it is much harder for them to prove there was no evidence to conduct a personal search.
I guess if one supports actions that are contradictory to the constitution when it comes to guns, then one would also support illegal personal searches.
I accept stop and search under certain situations.
Don’t you?
If the situations under which a stop and search are executed are reasonable, and police follow the guidelines fairly, I don’t see that as unconstitutional. Do you?
Yes, the idea of probing cop searches is creepy, but occasionally necessary, don’t you agree? We go through stop and search at airports routinely.
There have been many discussions about stop and frisk. And most of them are negative and have been shown to be racist and not effective. One black police officer in the UK was testifying to the fact that he had been stopped multiple times when he was out by himself, out with family and in fact coming from work. The same has been shown to be fact in cities like NYC and others in the USA.
When people see a group of teenage black boys standing in a public area, the thoughts of those around them are completely different than if those same boys would be white. In stop and frisk situations, many times they would be stopped, while the white kids would be ignored.
If you have reasonable suspicions that something illegal has or may happen, then police have the right to investigate that individual.
But in many cases, reasonable suspicion is being black or Hispanic. That to me is a violation of ones rights to privacy.
There are no federal laws on the possession of knives.
There are federal laws prohibiting mailing or transporting accross state lines some types of knives.
State laws concenring knives are falling to 2A challenges. Most states now have no or few laws regarding knives.
There is no spike in knife related crime in states that have repealed their knife laws.
“There are no federal laws on the possession of knives. ”
I believe you are wrong on this and if you check, you will find the UK does restrict the type and size of knives.
“The ability to purchase or carry switchblades or automatic knives continues to be heavily restricted or prohibited throughout much of Europe, with some notable exceptions. In Britain, the folding type of switchblade is commonly referred to as a flick knife. In the UK, knives with an automated opening system are nearly impossible to acquire or carry legally; although they can legally be owned, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, hire, give, lend, or import such knives. This definition would nominally restrict lawful ownership to ‘grandfathered’ automatic knives already in possession by their owner prior to the enactment of the applicable law in 1959. Even when such a knife is legally owned, carrying it in public without good reason or lawful authority is also illegal under current UK laws.”
“In the USA, switchblades remain illegal to import from abroad or to purchase through interstate commerce since 1958 under the Switchblade Knife Act (15 U.S.C. §§1241-1245). However, a 2009 amendment (Amendment 1447) to 15 U.S.C. §1244 provides that the Act shall not apply to spring-assist or assisted-opening knives (i.e. knives with closure-biased springs that require physical force applied to the blade to assist in opening the knife).[27]”
From Wikipedia
Not talking about the UK.
Clearly the IK has some squirrelly laws.
Federal knife laws are all about selling or transporting them accross state lines.
So first the left constantly tells us that we must get rid of guns to end violent crime.
That does not work, now we must get rid of knives.
I would note that London has had another violent crime spike – a 20% increase in rapes in 1 year.
So you have already barred women from a gun for their own protection.
Is your goal just to make them easy prey ?
Rapists frequently threaten and intimidate their victims with knives.
You want to make it easier for rapists to carry knives. Why is that?
By definition a criminal is one who does not obey the laws.
If a rapist wants a knife – no law will stop them.
If they can not get a knife, they will use broken bottles, or other makeshift weapons, or a gun.
Rape is rarely a spur of the moment crime.
Nothing provides a guarantee against rape – or any other violent crime.
But many many things reduce the probability of rape or the likelyhood of successfully defending one’s self.
Guns added to the London murder rate: “Unusually for the U.K., where gun-control laws are strict, seven of the dead so far this year were shot. There were only 10 fatal shootings in all of 2017.”
When given the option, gang bangers prefer to use a gun. Makes sense to me.
How do they get a gun? They are illegal!
Gun Control idiots do not grasp that laws have near zero effect on criminals.
All gun control laws mean is that only criminals will have guns.
“All gun control laws mean is that only criminals will have guns.”
I KNOW THAT!!! YOU KNOW THAT!!! I was trying to get those proposing gun control to answer.
““All gun control laws mean is that only criminals will have guns.”
Do I have to point out how dumb, stupid, incorrect that statement is? Or can you amend it yourselves?
Jay, as I have said many times before and I will say one more time. Once the left gets its hands on anything, most everything associated with that will be come illegal. One only needs to look at Europe or Australia to see where ‘controls” end up. Thats just my view.
You believe in government. You trust government. You accept that when government makes a decision, that is where that decision is to stop. I accept your believing this way.
i, on the other hand, I do not believe in government. I do not trust government. I believe once government gets the door cracked, that the barn door will eventually be removed and anything protected will no longer exist. I also believe that this has become much more likely in the last 10-15 years than anytime before since we are much more divided today and the extremes of both parties have taken control, thus eliminating the moderates that tempered any extreme legislation.
So where you believe that the current government will do not harm, I believe that the current government is harm in many instances, especially when addressing rights. One only needs to look at the surveillance legislation and the intrusion into privacy that has taken place with that one. I believe once they ban a certain rifle, then a certain handgun will be banned if that is used in a criminal manner. And it will continue as other crimes are committed.
we will never agree and i accept that. But please refrain from using terms like moron and stupid when debating a subject because neither of us has been proven to be right or wrong. It is just what we believe at this time. Once a decision has been made and an outcome is known, then one of us will be dumb and stupid for supporting or not supporting a certain position and the other will be smart and intelligent.
While the hypocratic oath starts “first do no harm”.
Government actions MUST on net produce good.
Outside of a narrow scope of things like courts, that is not evident.
Being neutral or negative is not sufficient.
Even having an actual positive benefit – which rarely is true, is not sufficient to use force.
Does jay believe that 51 of 100 of us can compell the other 49 or some subset to give some or all of their property to be burned ?
What each of us beleive is irrelevant.
The use of force must demonstrably produce a net benefit.
The use of force must not infringe on rights.
The use of force must be justified – it must be in response to an actual harm that has already occured.
No other reasons are sufficient.
“““All gun control laws mean is that only criminals will have guns.”
Do I have to point out how dumb, stupid, incorrect that statement is? Or can you amend it yourselves?”
The only Dumb aspect – is that you do not understand that it is true.
By definition criminals do not abide by laws.
I have noted that my wife is a public defender.
An extremely common case that she gets is a “person’s not to posses” case.
That means someone who may not legally be in possession of a gun has one.
This is incredibly common.
Put simply if the laws that make it criminal for criminals to have guns do not work,
why do you think that a law that makes it criminal for everyone not to have guns will mean that criminals who obviously already do not care about such laws are going to wake up one day and say – Oh no, before going out to rape someone or rob a bank – I should get rid of my gun ?
Not only are you making an obvious stupid logic error.
But reality proves you are wrong.
Gun control proponents want to make it MORE DIFFICULT for criminals to have guns.
Morons want to make it easier.
Morons are the ones thinking laws make something difficult for criminals. Smart people understand that laws only make difficulties for law abiding citizens because they are the only ones following the law.
For instance, you try getting a controlled drug, you go to the doctor, you have to convince them you need a pain control, then you go to the drug store and wait for up to 1/2 a day before the pharmacist fills the script. On the other hand, Joe Illegal high school kid walks to the corner and buys all he wants when he wants them.
So you actually think that as Joe Doe proceeds to play to Rape Jill Smith that he will think
“But I should not use a gun or knife because those are illegal” ?
And you are calling others Morons ?
In the early 90’s a study found that armed victims thwarted about 650 rapes a day.
The latest survey’s of self reporting by prisoners estimate that the number today is closer to 3600 a day.
Maybe those numbers are high. I do not know. But lets assume they are off by a factor of 100
That is still more rapes prevented in a single year than all deaths from mass shootings in a decade.
And what are the odds that these reports are off by a factor of 100.
The CDC under Obama did a literature survey – a survey of credible published studies and found that the crime prevented by gun ownership is likely an order of magnitude or more larger than all gun crime in the US.
Again maybe the results from the CDC are wrong – but they are unlikely to be grater than an order of magnitude wrong.
There have been myriads of studies of the effects of imposing or repealing gun control laws.
Thus far no one anywhere has EVER found statistically significant evidence of an actual effect.
Prior to imposing its draconian gun laws, gun deaths in Austrailia as well as violent crime were trending down. After they continued to trend down with no noticeable change in trends.
Comparisons to New Zealand which did not impose gun laws and otherwise has near identical cultures, demographics rates of gun ownership and crime demonstrated no post gun confiscation change in anything compared to NZ.
The left likes to make much of the higher rates of Violence in the US than Europe – but white violence in the US and white violence in Europe is about the same. European rates of violence are increasing as their numbers of immigrants are increasing – even if you eliminate acts of terror.
Rapes are rising rapidly in European countries.
The US has the highest rates of gun ownership of any nation in the world.
Our current rates are very nearly identical to those of our founders.
Yet even accounting for europe we are among the least violent countries in the world.
The fact is that there is no actual evidence that gun laws anywhere have ever reduced violence.
There is some evidence that the absence of gun laws has reduced violence.
The IDEA is to reduce the number of knives carried by EVERYONE. That includes potential rapists. But if you’re so sure it will make potential victims more vulnerable, back up that assertion, show me the statistics for would-be rape victims fighting off rapists with their own knives.
“The IDEA is to reduce the number of knives carried by EVERYONE”
Everyone gets that.
Most of us actually grasp how stupid that is.
“That includes potential rapists.”
Most of us understand that is what you expect.
Most of us grasp that is NOT what will occur.
You still do not understand that those who would do serious violence – rape, murder, mass killings, obvious do not give a damn about the law.
No Rapist says: “I guess I should not take a knife with me, because that would be a crime”.
AS I noted, the myriads of “person’s not to possess” cases that go through our justice system every day may it clear that criminals do not care about gun laws.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that short of a police state, only those who are not predisposed to criminality obey the law ?
We are tap dancing arround a fundimental core flaw in progressivism and all statism.
If you pass a law, and people do not naturally obey it – on their own, without threat of enforcement, then that law makes the government larger, more totalitarian. It shifts society a tiny bit from producing to enforcing. As you do this more and more – the country shifts slowly from producing and rising standards of living to gradually increasing totalitarianism.
Put more simply, any law that is not rigorously enforced is meaningless. Passing it is just a stupid feel good act.
Laws against knives will not stop rapists from using knives – unless you have a state where everyone is constantly stopped and frisked. But such laws will stop most of us from carrying knives. Absent vigorous enforcement – which has a very high cost in inumerable ways, such laws increase the danger to most of us rather than decreasing it.
I gave you the CDC data on the use of guns to prevent crimes.
Why do you think that if Gun laws actually make us less safe, that knive laws would work better ?
I would further note that contra to worldwide downward trends, Rapes in London are rising precipitously.
Oh, and you are the one seeking to restrict freedom, impose your will by force.
The obligation to statistically demonstrate that your laws are effective falls on you – not me.
The default is freedom. Infringing requires justification – not the other way arround.
Even this sludge head thinks your complaint over knife control is bollocks:
Your citing Piers Morgan ?
Why not just cite Hitler ? Stalin ? Mao ?
Guess you didn’t notice my ‘sludge head’ qualification.
BTW, Morgan, like you, is fixated on kissing Trump’s ass.
Like you, he says he doesn’t agree with everything Trump says/does, but overall sucks up to him, like you.
Now that I think of it, he reminds me of you: the same opinionated pompous ass syndrome.
Yes, Jay we know anyone who can not see “666” tattooed under Trumps toupee is a Trump sycophant.
Not declaring that we are in the end times because Trump has been elected is not ass kissing.
I have attacked Trump where he has been wrong.
You think that everything that Trump does is wrong because “argh! Trump”.
You have discredited yourself – badly.
No one else has done it to you.
Ron says: “Jay for many Libertarian leaning individuals and others that believe in the meaning of the words of the constitution when it was written, it is not if one can carry a knife or own a gun. it is based on the right to bear arms. Period. If you want to change the rights as defined in the bill of rights, start a movement to amend the constitution. Use some of your unparalleled hatred for Trump and channel that energy into something many would find a positive movement.”
But I and MANY others believe the 2nd STRONGLY regulates the right to own weapons by the opening phrase “a Well Regulated Militia.” The constitution doesn’t regulate those ‘regulations.’ It’s implicit that the militias set up those regulations. Nor does the constitution provide the right for all citizens to join a militia. Right?
This has been debated many times here, but I will provide the definition of “militia” as defined in 1776. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Many states included the right to bear arms even before the federal constitution. PA declared in theirs “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
In 1879,,,SCOTUS ruled ” “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”
In 2010 SCOTUS ruled the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection. In that decision they struck down the hand gun ban that existed in Chicago.
So the wording debate will continue as to what the founders meant in the 2nd amendment and how the 14th amendment meshes with the 2nd. When liberal SCOTUS happens, then gun control will happen through legislation. Not what the separation of powers were meant to do as politics were not meant to be in SCOTUS, but thats how it is now.
You can beleive whatever you want – but the FACT is that is not what the text means.
The 2nd clause says “the right of the people”. It does NOT say “the right of millitias”
One of the reasons for Heller was that significant examination of exactly what our founders and the people of the time meant was explored.
The 2A was publicly debated as part of the ratification process, I am sure you have read myriads of quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, …… myriads of others. .
The iceing on the “2A” cake was that the 14th ammendment was passed SPECIFICALLY to give freed black slaves the right to own weapons to protect themselves from their former owners.
We all get that you want the 2A to means something different.
You are perfectly entitled to want that.
This also reflects why the words in the constitution (and all laws) must mean what those who ratified them would have understood.
The meaning of words change over time. As does circumstances. conditions and technology.
To the greatest extent possible we hope the language of the constitution is timeless, but if it is not then we are free to change it. If we do so then our changes will mean what the new words mean to US. In 5 generations that meaning should not change because the common use of our words changes.
This is the only means of statutory interpratation that results in the rule of law.
We all constantly bemoan the “partisan” nature of the courts or SCOTUS.
The courts should NEVER be using politics or ideology to inform their decisions.
Any means of statutory construction that does not start from the meaning of the words to those who enacted them will inherently result in radically increasing partisanship in the courts.
You are litterally arguing for the rule of man, not law.
“The Militia” at the time of the Constitution was every able bodied man over the age of 17.
The constitution (Art 2, Sect 8) has separate clauses for Militia’s and Armies.
Armies are raised by congress when needed
The militia just exists, it is called up when needed. The concept of a posse that we see in western films comes from the constitution. The purpose of the millitia of the people was not merely to fight wars, it was to enforce any laws.
At the founding there was no such thing as a police force – policing had not been invented yet.
When the government needed man power to catch or arrest a criminal or criminals, it basically asked for volunteers or conscripted people as necescary.
18th century laws REQUIRED adult males to own firearms.
There are two issues here.
The first is what did the 2A mean as written ?
And you absolutely lose on that.
The 2nd is what should our law be today ?
The answer to that is that you are free to change it.
Repeal of replace the 2A. You have as much power to do so, as our founders did to enact it.
Every generation has had exactly the same power to modify the constitution.
The problem is that those like you have spent the past 70 years trying to change the meaning of the constitution without going through the difficult process of modifying it.
I will be happy to agree that circumstances today are NOT the same as those in 1787.
Those changes in circumstances are an excellent reason to contemplate what the private right to arms should be today.
Personally I do not think the changes in circumstances warrant changing the constitution.
But I completely respect your right to feel differently.
I do not agree with your arguments.
Though I absolutely agree that the circumstances have changed and your arguments are worthy of consideration.
But until you are able to persuade sufficient people to repeal the 2A it remains as written. Not as you wish it was written. Not as some jurists mental gymnastics attempt to modify it to suit their political idea of today.
If it needs adapting – it gets adapted by amendment, not by re-interpretation.
The constitution did not give 9 old foggies the power to rewrite the constitution.
Ron, remember all those Trump supporters warning us how big the Federal Debt would be if we elected Hillary?
Hold on to your seat. Have oxygen handy, the CBO’s long-term projections are due MONDAY!
Have your thesaurus handy for synonyms for MASSIVE!
Jay, please read.
http://www.dummies.com/education/politics-government/the-7-articles-of-the-us-constitution/
Specifically Article 1
I read it. Twice. And….?
Trump is not king. Congress proposed and passed the spending bill. He could piss and moan about it and he has veto power, but it is congresses responsibility and they were the ones who passed that crap. And I have little doubt that the same deficit position would have occurred had the democrats proposed it, just the spending would have gone on in different agancies. Look at the past 20 years. And 40 if you disregard the Clinton years where that dirty word “compromise” led to actions that resulted in balanced or surplus budgets. Congress took care of that in early 2000’s along with Bush’s war. Congress has and always will be responsible for the debt and deficits.
As you said, the president has the power to veto it.
I opposed the current budget. Trump briefly made noise about not signing it.
Bloated budgets are the consequence of the lefts willingness to shutdown government if they do not get what they want.
Just to be clear – though I beleive that the rules need changed – the constitution clearly intended to make it hard to spend money, raise taxes, and make laws, NOT reduce spending. lower taxes, and repeal laws.
Regardless the rules are as they are. Republicans used them in the minority to try to bring spending under control and to try to repeal PPACA.
Democrats are free to use those rules to advance their goals.
That said just as the republicans get the credit/blame for their efforts to reign in spending during the Obama administraiton. the Democrats get the credit/blame for they efforts to bloat spending.
Here is an excellent article. While it starts as a intellectual critique of social construction, it confronts post-modernism.
quillette.com/2018/04/06/lost-social-constructionisms-epistemic-rabbit-hole/
I have some minor problems with its essentially binary position on objectivity.
The fact that social construction, and post modernism fail, does not prove that there is some such thing as absolute objectivity.
Put differently post-modernists are correct in that we can imagine anything, and atleast for some time live within that imagined world. But we can not sustainably do so unless atleast some of us live in a world were they are productive.
We can not know what objective reality is.
We can however reject post modern imagined schemes that do not work.
I have noted before – the absence of absolute truth does not preclude absolute falsity.
This entire discussion though seeming intellectual, etheral and disconected from the real world, is incredibly important to the real world at the moment.
Social construction and post modernism have completely taken over the humanities, academia, and the politics of the left.
Post Modernism is an expanded form of Marxism. Marx fixated on class oppression, post modernists have expanded Marxism to all forms of oppression – racial, sexual, class, ….
Post modernism incorporates social construction as a means of expanding the scope of oppression and as a means of refuting any justification for any distinctions.
Gender as an example is a social construct – despite obvious physical and genetic differences.
Therefor all distinctions based on gender constitute oppression.
What’s another $1.9 Trillion. trumps tax cut will pay for it. Or is that Mexico will pay for it. Er, wait, that was another fantasy.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382319-gop-tax-law-will-add-19-trillion-to-debt-cbo
I oppose the recently passed budget.
I oppose not only the increased military spending, but all the lard slathered on to get other democrats and republicans to vote for this pork fest.
I wish Trump had veto’d it as he said he would.
Our debt is a long term rather than short term threat, but it is the largest long term threat facing us.
Trump’s deficits are on track to average about 80% of Obama;s.
Adjusted for inflation – that would be 1/2 of Obama’s.
That is a real problem.
I will be happy to criticise Trump and all republicans for this.
But please do not try to persuade me that this would not be worse under Clinton.
Which recent administrations were better at controlling the national debt?
Democrats or Republicans?
Clinton got a surplus.
GW Bush ran the deficit through the roof!
Obama cut the deficit in half.
Trump and the GOP are doubling it again.
Is there a lesion to be learned here?
Jay figures dont lie, but liars can figure. Where the hell are you getting your facts.
1 when Bush took office the debt was 5.7 T
2. When obama took office the debt was 10.6,T
3. When trump took office the debt was 19.9T
Who cut what in 1/2?
And Clinton, you seem to think that the President is a king. Congress spends. Congress taxes. Congress sets deficits and surpluses. It was the GOP congress working with Clinton that balanced the budget.
Please get your facts correct!
Sorry Ron, I read the stats wrong.
Change in Natl debt to GDP Ratio went UP during Reagan, Bush-1 and Bush-2. Went DOWN under Carter and Clinton.
Under Bush-2 it went up 20.1%
Under Obama:
“The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.”
Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)
Trump’s next year projection: $2 Trillion?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#2ad4b7061917
Jay;
The transistion year between Presidents is ALWAYS a problem.
Regardless, A significant part of the 2009 deficit is due to legislation and actions early in the Obama administration – having nothing to do with Bush.
The reasons for the massive (though not the largest Obama defficit) 2009 deficit according to CBO were
declines in tax receipt of $320 billion
$100 billion due to tax rate cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA);
$245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts;
$100 billion in additional spending for ARRA;
$185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense
ARRA was ENTIRELY under Obama.
Nearly all TARP spending occured under Obama and TARP was restructured by Obama – Bush passed essentially a buy back of MBS’s, That never occurred. Obama used money allocated under Bush for purposes Bush never authorized.
Revenue losses are due to the recession and clearly not Obama’s responsibiliy.
At the same time from taking office Obama massively increases SS, Medicare and Medicaid spending.
CBO is saying Trump deficits will reach 1T by 2020.
Obama deficits AVERAGED 1T.
I am not looking to play a republican/democrat game here.
But Bush’s largest deficit was just over half of Obama’s smallest.
Obama did NOT reduce the deficit.
Trump’s current and projected deficits – without adjusting for inflation will all be lower than Obama’s highest deficit, and obama’s average defict.
If you are going to play this game – atleast get your numbers right.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Federal%20Deficit&units=b&size=m&legend=&year=1960_2021&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b_b_b_b&spending0=4.79_10.48_7.15_4.76_5.92_1.41_3.70_8.64_25.16_-3.24_2.84_23.03_23.37_14.91_6.13_53.24_73.73_53.66_59.19_40.73_73.83_78.97_127.98_207.80_185.37_212.31_221.23_149.73_155.18_152.64_221.03_269.24_290.32_255.06_203.18_163.95_107.43_21.89_-69.27_-125.61_-236.24_-128.23_157.75_377.59_412.73_318.35_248.18_160.71_458.55_1412.69_1294.37_1299.59_1086.95_679.54_484.60_438.49_584.65_665.37_832.63_984.40_986.95_915.92
This totally f’ed up this thread. I cant see anything with out a damn high powered magnifying glass.
HOLY FUCKIN’ SHIT!
FBI RaidsTrump’s Long Tume Lawyer’s Office!
YIKES!
And what does this have to do with Russian collusion?
This guy is everything this country was never suppose to stand for. Mueller needs to go! He is going to get Trump on something regardless. He answers to no one, is a power all to himself and will make sure the next election is fixed ( like the fix is in)
I want to be careful about jumping to conclusions here.
There are conflicting stories.
But this appears to be an unbeleiveably stupid move on the part of Mueller.
I am honestly surprised he was able to get a warrant – but this took place in New York where the rule of law is wishful thinking.
Regardless, I noted before that Mueller past history as a prosecutor was evidenced by beligerance, unwillingness to cede any weakness and boneheaded stupid moves when things were not going his way.
This will subject Mueller to incredible scrutiny.
Mueller did not do this. He gave something to the NYC office of the FBI and they proceeded with the warrant.
“The seized records include communications between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, which would likely require a special team of agents to review because conversations between lawyers and clients are protected from scrutiny in most instances.”
Mueller could care less. He will skirt the law in someway to get what he wants. This guy is a flesh eating bacteria on democracy in America.
My dislike for Muller far exceeds Jays dislike for Trump. It promotes anger in me for him and his actions. So it can be said “I hate Mueller”
My hate is WAY MORE justified than yours, Ron.
Mueller already has STRONG evidence to either have Trump impeached, or arrested. He wouldn’t be making a bold move like this if he hadn’t set up the mechanisms to indict Trump, even if he’s fired.
If IN FACT Trump is guilty of indictable crimes why in th world wouldn’t you want those crimes revealed? Don’t you want that CANCER cut from the body politic?
“Don’t you want that CANCER cut from the body politic?”
I’ll wait before convicting. This is about Stormy Daniels, not Russia!!!!
And Mueller isn’t prosecuting.
Mueller, apparently, discovered evidence of a crime, and notified the proper agencies.
As he is supposed to do, per his instructions to investigate.
Read this:
https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/09/the-search-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-office-what-we-can-infer-immediately/
Popehat appears to be down.
There still is too much rumor and too little information regarding this.
With respect to your post.
To my knowledge EVERYTHING related to Cohen is completely tangential to Mueller’s investigation.
There is not even a good basis to accept that Mueller could have discovered something to refer.
Next, the “reports” claim this is an FBI raid.
Any investigation of Cohen of any kind by the FBI that had any relation to Trump would require an SC.
Either
there is another SC appointed
Mueller is investigating Cohen.
This does nto actually involve the FBI
or Cohen in not being investigated for anything related to Trump.
I would also note that the norm for a warrant is that it must be narrow and specific.
Law enforcement can not just carte blanch grab whatever it wants wherever it wants.
Though often law enforcement gets away with more than it should, it is likely that scrutiny of a search of a lawyer will be incredibly high.
From what I understand a separate team with no ties to whoever is actually investigating – as we do not appear to know that, will have to review what is recovered, assess whether it has anything to do with the basis of the warrant and only turn over what does.
Further absent evidence of a breach of priviledge – which must come from OUTSIDE the documents being searched, anything priviledged – even if it was evidence of a crime is completely inadmissible.
Put simply you can not search a lawyers communication for evidence that they were compolicit in a crime or that they broke priviledge and then attempt to get things admitted.
You have to prove that priviledge was broken or that the lawyer was complicit in criminal conduct in order to get anything you find in their papers admitted at all.
o
If as an example the product of this search demonstrated Cohen and Trump plotted somebodies murder, to be able to use that:
You would have to have evidence of that crime OUTSIDE of the papers searched.
If the Cohen warrant is about Danial’s there are myriads of problems.
It is not a federal issue.
There is no crime.
It is outside Mueller’s investigative scope.
Cohen appears to be a pretty bad attorney.
But there does not appear to be anything that he has done that is criminal.
“Mueller already has STRONG evidence to either have Trump impeached, or arrested. ”
He does ?
What evidence would that be ?
There is nothing even hinted at thus far that Trump or his campaign actually committed a crime.
Every single plea or indictment of Mueller’s thus far is either a process violation during the investigation, or unrelated to the campaign.
Not only is there no credible allegation regarding Trump.
There is not even a credible allegation regarding the campaign.
Increasingly it is self evident that the FBI did not have a basis for a warrant on carter page.
That means everyone who signed any of the page warrant applications violated criminal laws.
Warrants are based on Oath’s.
Mueller is prosecuting people right and left for false statements NOT under oath to the FBI.
McCabe lost his job and may well be prosecuted for false statements under Oath,
Comey is atleast going to be investigated.
There is a long list of others. Rosenstein signed atleast one of the Carter Page warrant applications – can you explain to me why he has not recused himself ?
Thus far we have nothing more than we had when the FBI sought a warrant for Page.
If the FISA warrant was improvidently granted – nothing has made anything better since.
I would note that not only was the FBI unable to get anything on page after a year of surveilane – but nothing on anyone he communicated with.
Why does everything have to be about emotion.
I do not “hate” Mueller, but the evidence – and I have said this BEFORE, is that he is bullheaded, arrogant and tends to double down when things are not going his way.
My “guess” here is that this is related to Daniels.
But there is no credible crime associated with Daniels, and nothing tying Cohen/Daniels to Muller’s investigation.
Absent a tie back to Trump/Russia this either is a serious problem for Mueller or possiby one for Rosenstein – as there are stories that Rosenstein secretly expanded Mueller’s mandate.
We do not do star chamber’s Muller’s mandate must be public by law.
Your Mueller rants are irrational.
For them to be valid you have to believe Mueller went into the investigation TO GET Trump at any cost, and that he somehow managed to assemble a large staff of experienced lawyers/prosecutors with reputations for professionalism and honesty at the start – more of them Republican than Democrat – with the same devious intent; and that his superiors at the FBI and DoJ colluded to allow him and them to proceed with nefarious intent.
You hear the nuttiness in that assumption?
“For them to be valid you have to believe Mueller went into the investigation TO GET Trump at any cost, and that he somehow managed to assemble a large staff of experienced lawyers/prosecutors with reputations for professionalism and honesty at the star”
So many errors.
First no prosecutor takes on any investigation without the intention to “get someone”.
Except that they are supposed to confine themselves to the law, I have no problem with that.
While there is a pretense that special investigations are somehow less about “getting someone” the fact is any SC that does not come home with a scalp will likely be thought of as a failure.
Further as I have noted previously, Mueller actually has a reputation of being arrogant, stubborn, on track and to head boldly in the wrong direction often disasterously.
Mueller’s staff has long ago been criticised. Several share the same stupid bullheaded tendency he does.
No they do not have a reputation for proffesioalism and honesty. They have a reputation as high powered successful DC Lawyers.
One attack I heard on Mueller’s choices noted – this is DC – Mueller could not swing a cat without hitting dozens of lawyers as qualified as those he picked – none of whom would have the obvious partisan issues that those he hired do.
The standard with respect to legal ethics is the “appearance of impropriety”.
One need not prove actual bias, only the appearance of it.
That is why Sessions recused himself.
That is why Rosenstein should have and Mueller should never have taken this, and definitely why he should have assembled a team with less readily apparent political taint.
“more of them Republican than Democrat” – False.
“An examination of the voter registration records of the 16 publicly confirmed lawyers on Mueller’s team found that 13 of them are registered Democrats. Not a single one is a registered Republican. Three have no party affiliation.”
My assumption – one that is quite obvious is that:
Republican democrat or whatever, when you accept the position as SC, that it is the pinacle of your carreer and you know that if you do not end with serious scalps it will reflect badly on you.
That is how it is. I do not have a problem with that. But it is a reason for being far more cautious rather than aggressive.
I would further note that significant parts of this investigation are incredibly incestuous.
Mueller was close to Comey who has lied under oath.
He was involved in the U1 coverup.
Rosenstien was involved in the early investigation of Trump as well as the FISA warrants.
Sessions recused himself on far less problems than these guys have.
Nor have we addressed the wider connections linking all these people – including mccabe, Ohr, and numerous others.
There is more evidence of a conspiracy involving DOJ and FBI that started prior tot he Clinton email investigation.
One of the things that is increasingly self evident regarding McCabe is that not only did he have an axe to grind with Flynn, but that his investigations were coverups of his own misconduct.
I have openly stated my “assumptions”.
You need not inaccurately make them up for me.
Again you seem to think you can read minds.
I am reluctant to comment as there are some conflicting stories.
But this is NOT good for Mueller or his investigation.
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/983435900746018816?s=21
And every bit of that is going to be subject to the same kind of intense scrutiny that the FISA warrant was.
Further, though details are still sketchy there appears to be no meaningful connection between this and the Trump/Russia investigation.
And if Mueller does not have that – then there is a huge problem.
IF Mueller does nto have sufficient justification for this – and the standard for that is incredibly high.
There are very very serious implications.
Mueller has just given every single defendant in every case he has a basis for attacking Mueller for bias. He has provided a basis for the House and Senate to investigate the Mueller investigation. He may have provided Hunt/IG with the basis for investigating Mueller.
He may have subjected himself to disciplinary measures.
Further if he comes up short here, he is toast.
Do you now realize how off base your comments are in this post?
Are you on mind numbing medication ?
“Do you now realize how off base your comments are in this post?
Are you on mind numbing medication ?”
What facts have I presented that are in error ?
Your response to pretty much everything seems to be
“Your stupid, because I disagree”
That is not a valid argument.
But it is evidence that you are incapable of intelligent discussion and think ad hominem is argument.
Advice: Buy US military stocks related to HUGE bombing raids in Syria!
(The smart money is predicting Trump will have to deflect from his lawyer’s records raid big time!
I know that you see every bit of news as somehow favoring your Argh! Trump! meme.
I do not know enough here – but by surface appearance this blows up in Mueller’s face.
As Ken White noted a search warrant for a lawyer is a very very big deal.
I would not presume that Mueller actually went through all the right hoops.
Regardless, everything he did with regard to this warrant will be fully discoverable.
Mueller has subject himself to intense scrutiny. He has given every single person he has charge thus far new grounds for counter attack.
Mueller has radically upped the ante, and he MUST produce, and it better not be another of this 18 USC 1001 farces.
I do not know enough details here, but this appears to be an unbelievably stupid and desparate move on the part of Mueller.
.
It was nice while it lasted, but pollution will always win.
JS: Why are you now bloviating on two threads when you said the Diversity one was OK with you. Diversity is a nice echo chamber for you so enjoy it.
One trough should be enough for any pig.
Why aren’t you capable of making reasoned arguments for your positions ?
Why is it that everything you post is ad hominem, fallacy, emotion, and pseudo omniscience ?
Again what I told you is there there exist real echo chambers you can go to that will be happy to accept your garbage without criticism.
That said you are not entitled to speak publicly without criticism.
You are not entitled to silence criticism.
On the surface, and not having an explanation for the raid on Cohen’s office, I’d say it stinks.
I hope this is not primarily about the Stormy Daniels mole hill.
The information that I read was Mueller had some information from his investigation concerning the Stormy Daniels payoff and confidentiality agreement. He turned that over to the NYC FBI office which obtained the search warrant. The files seized where about her, which also included client/attorney communications between Trump and Cohen. How the courts view the FBI reviewing those communications can have a lasting and devastating impact on attorney relations with clients. If they break that confidentially protected communications, then you can expect Priest/sinner and doctor/,patient confidentiality to fall next.
But we do have those that find that acceptable as long as they find the crime and prosecute that.
Why are you assuming whatever they found wasnt serious enough to warrent the warrant?
Did you see my post below describing the Southern Districk lawyer who asked for the warrant and is in charge of the case? In addition to his ‘Republican’ credentials noted there, he donated money to the Trump campaign. Don’t you think you’re being unreasonable (blockheaded is closer to my assessment) dismissing the possibility that something real creepy was discovered?
I will wait and see. There is plenty of time between now and the election to have something come before the court and let jurors decide guilt or innocence.
But when people see that attorney/client conversations are not confidential, that is going to change the relationship drastically. If a client charged with murder is asked by his attorney, did you kill that person to determine a course of action (going to trial, negotiating a reduced sentence, etc), will the clients really tell the truth knowing the government can obtain a search warrant.
But this should make people understand what I have understood all my career in business. NEVER,EVER put in writing anything you do not want anyone else to discover regardless of the person you are conversing with. And make damn sure the other person is not documenting that conversation in writing or other discoverable ways.
Ron there are well established crime-fraud exceptions to the confidentiality rule.
“Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):
“suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
destroying or concealing evidence
witness tampering, and
concealing income or assets.”
I’ll wait to see the outcome if I live long enough. Should know something by late 2019, early 2020.
I suspect Cohen paid off the Ho in CA and told Mueller one thing and he found something different, thus “lying to the FBI to obstruct justice”.
Kind of like the Flynn and Manafort issues. When were they charged and what’s the outcome?
Best campaign strategy ever!
“I suspect Cohen paid off the Ho in CA and told Mueller one thing and he found something different, thus “lying to the FBI to obstruct justice”.
That would not be enough for a warrant that would breach priviledge.
Further, Daniels is completely outside Mueller’s scope.
I can not find evidence that Mueller interviewed Cohen.
I don’t think its just caught in a lie.
To evoke breaching lawyer-client confidentiality, most legal experts are saying it has to be something more serious.
Did you read Ken White’s link below?
Jay, I have basically checked out on Trump, Russia, Mueller, Clinton and everyone else associated with this investigation. So, no, I did not read the link. I will wait a couple years to see what the final outcome is. The only thing that I may follow is a headline, like this one that caught my eye, or something that I might hear on a local news cast like the issue being conducted by the NYC FBI.
So its wait and see 2020.
We are short on facts.
Much of what I am reading in NYT is suggesting that there was no issue with Priviledge regarding this warrant, because they only sought Cohen’s financial records regarding Daniels.
There is no reason to presume that evidence exists to justify breaching privilege when there may not be a breach of privilege.
My expectation based on past Trump garbage press is this is much ado about nothing.
The only thing I can think of that might constitute a “crime” in the context being addressed is Daniels claim that someone approached her at some time and said something to the effect that if she talked she would be sorry. It is a reach but that MIGHT make probable cause that crime was committed – though you would have to presume there was a threat of physical violence.
As I said it is a reach.
Then you need to tie that to Cohen.
Otherwise the only crime here is bad lawyering.
There are several ways in which attorney client priviledge can be broken.
But these must be proven BEFORE the warrant can be granted.
If on review it is determined that the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant was not presented with proof that priviledge was violated, then everything will be thrown out.
Further everyone associated with the warrant will be tainted.
You really need to consult the law and a good attorney.
This is far more complicated and narrow than you are representing.
Subborning perjury is “inducing someone to lie under oath” just knowing someone will lie under oath is not a crime, it is an ethics violation.
“concealing assets” as more of that made up garbage of yours.
It is only a crime not to disclose something or even to actively hide something when you have an affirmative duty to reveal it. You constantly assume the right to privacy does not exist.
First the loss of privilege MUST be proven just to get the warrant.
That is one of the big deals here. There really are only two choices
The warrant is bad, or there is very good proof of something.
Further that “something” can not be just anything.
Trump could have confessed to Cohen – that would not get a warrant.
Cohen could have done something illegal with Daniels – that would get a warrant – but would not allow a search of anything privileged.
IF Cohen did something illegal and told Trump about it after the fact – it is probably still priviledged.
I would note that Attorney Client Priviledge belongs to the client – not the attorney.
What you are calling the “crime fraud” exception requires the lawyer and the client to be jointly involved in a criminal conspiracy.
After the fact knowledge by either is not sufficient.
Even being told of a crime before it occurs is not sufficient.
There are many things that an attorney must disclose as a result of ethics rules,
But the attorney is STILL barred from breaking priviledge.
As an example if an attorney is plausibly told by a client “I did X”,
The attorney can not preclude the client from testifying – unless the client actually tells the attorney “I am going to testify, I did not do X”
Further if the client testifies falsely, the attorney has an ethical duty to inform the court but they are still not permitted to break priviledge – it gets extremely messy.
An attorney can not even break privildge to provide evidence that a client is lying about them.
This happens extremely often in appeals.
A defendant will say I want you to put witness X on,
and the attorney puts on Wintess X and withness X’s testimony is highly damaging to the client.
Very often on appeal the client will claim that the attorney never should have put witness X on.
But the attorney can not testify, but the client told me to.
The above is about witnesses, but the conflict occurs more often about strategy.
“But this should make people understand what I have understood all my career in business. NEVER,EVER put in writing anything you do not want anyone else to discover regardless of the person you are conversing with. And make damn sure the other person is not documenting that conversation in writing or other discoverable ways.”
First, we should be secure in our person, papers, home, property.
I absolutely reject the thesis that if you do not have something to hide you should not care who digs into your life.
At the same time I have been involved in many “legal” conflicts.
My rule is to write EVERYTHING, to be careful about how and what you right – to assume others are going to read it.
At the same time assume that the truth will work in my favor, and that if it does not then that is how it should be.
The problem I tend to encounter is cherry picking.
You can always pick a handful of messages out of 20,000 and paint a picture that is completely at odds with the truth.
People do not express themselves perfectly every time.
This is why lawyers advise you to tell your story ONCE and then not to repeat it to anyone.
“Why are you assuming whatever they found wasnt serious enough to warrent the warrant?”
First because it is increasingly evident that the FISA warrant on Carter Page never should have been granted.
Next, because warrants that never should have been granted are all the time.
Courts constantly find warrants invalid.
Unfortunately that rarely prevents evidence obtained from getting in anyway.
The standard is no “something creepy”.
Assuming your facts:
No court should have granted a warrant without:
Proof of a crime,
Proof that the lawyer was complicit.
Proof that privilege was broken.
And the standard for that will be high. This is far from an ordinary warrant.
Finally, this makes little sense. It is near impossible to beleive that Mueller’s investigations tripped over anything related to Daniels. That is so far from his domain it is just nuts.
Based on what we publicly know regarding Daniels – it is reasonable to beleive that there is some public lying gone on.
But that is not a crime.
Aside from being badly written the Daniels NDA is not evidence of any crime.
You can pay people to speak. You can pay people to be silent.
You just can not pay them to cover up a crime.
“No court should have granted a warrant without:
Proof of a crime,
Proof that the lawyer was complicit.
Proof that privilege was broken.
And the standard for that will be high. This is far from an ordinary warrant.”
How DENSE are you??
That the court granted the warrant indicates proof of that kind of evidence WAS presented, you nitwit.
WHY DO YOU KEEP DIGGING YOURSELF DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO THIS PIT OF DENIAL?
Trump is a devious unprincipled sneak. The lawyer is a fixer for the sneak. If they broke the law, they should pay for it. Right!
Or don’t you believe in the rule of law? Or only when it suits you?
How dense are you ? Bad warrants are issued all the time ?
It is nearly self evident at this point that the Carter Page FISA warrant never should have been issued – and yet about a dozen people SWORE that there was probable cause of a specific crime, and that the warrant would provide additional evidence of that crime.
That is a sworn falsification AND a bad warrant.
Why is it so hard for you to beleive we do not have another ?
Rosenstein personally signed off on this – which was highly unusual.
What that likely meant is that no one lower was willing to.
That said – it is increasingly likely there is no issue of privilege because privileged information was NOT requested in the warrant.
“Trump is a devious unprincipled sneak. The lawyer is a fixer for the sneak.”
Whether true or false – these are assertions about character. They are not allegations of a crime.
“If they broke the law, they should pay for it. Right!”
Actually no. We do not get to just guess about these things.
If there is no probable cause that a crime has been committed then the warrant itself is sworn falsification and a crime.
Speaking of crimes – what crime are you alleging regarding Trump/Cohen ?
There is absolutely nothing I have heard regarding these allegations that is criminal.
“Or don’t you believe in the rule of law? Or only when it suits you?”
The rule of law starts HERE:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]”
Probable cause requires”
an actual crime to be alleged – what crime is that ?
The allegation to have evidence supporting it.
The warrant to clearly state what is being searched for and that there is probable cause that it will be found.
If all of those elements are not true – the warrant itself is specious and likely is a sworn falsification – itself a crime.
I am far more concerned about the FBI engaging in witch hunts, than in NDA’s involving porn stars.
:
What Crime ?
You can not get a warrant to look for a crime.
You have to allege probable cause that a specific crime has been committed, as well as probable cause that you will find MORE evidence of that crime in what you are searching.
wow, we agree.
Re the President’s Shyster :
For aFederal Judge to sign off on a Warrent this serious indicates the government presented him with convincing evidence of a crime or crimes committed.
Those who have monitored this guy for the last month already know he’s a sneaky worm.
Like lawyer, like client.
Sorry, I’ll wait a while.
dduck..
“The Michael Cohen search warrants came out of the Southern District of NY, led by US Attorney Geoffrey Berman, a former law partner of Rudy Giuliani & Trump appointee.”
Something’s going on there…
But we may never know what..
It’s a Federal investigation, and Trump could pardon the lawyer tomorrow.
Wonder what would happen then?
Pardon’s do not inherently stop investigations.
That would also be highly unlikely.
We already know that the FISA warrants were improperly granted,
Bad warrants are issued all the time.
Being a sneaky worm is not sufficient basis for a warrant.
“Like lawyer, like client.”
Because ?
I have hired lawyers many times. I hire entirely different types and personalities of lawyers depending on the issue.
I have hired some of the most skilled and ethical lawyers I know.
I have tried to avoid hiring those with poor skill or ethics.
But often I have had to make do.
“We already know that the FISA warrants were improperly granted,”
Baloney
““We already know that the FISA warrants were improperly granted,”
Baloney”
Even the Schiff memo inadvertently confirms that.
McCabe testified that without the Steele dossier there would have been no warrant.
The Steele dossier is not sufficient for a warrant.
End of story.
Again What Crime ?
While you seem to be attempting some commutative property of slime with respect to Cohen/Trump.
That is both a false and meaningless argument.
No one is going to alter their assessment of Trump’s character based on Cohen.
Trump’s character is well known.
Still a puzzle to me.
Trump – just an ordinary Republican Presidency:
“The searches open a new front for the Justice Department in its scrutiny of Mr. Trump and his associates: His longtime lawyer is being investigated in Manhattan; his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is facing scrutiny by prosecutors in Brooklyn; his former campaign chairman is under indictment; his former national security adviser has pleaded guilty to lying; and a pair of former campaign aides are cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller, meanwhile, wants to interview Mr. Trump about possible obstruction of justice.”
This is what happens when you elect a disorganized Dumbell to the presidency: chaos.
“Homeland security adviser Tom Bossert’s departure comes one day after John Bolton started at NSC. In 2018, Trump has changed his Secretary of State, top economic adviser, comms director, VA secretary, CIA head, national security adviser, top Russia lawyer.”
Welcome to the Chapter 11 White House
Turnover in the Trump administration is actually pretty normal.
What is different is that the Press breathlessly reports every under-under secretary that leaves.
“Turnover in the Trump administration is actually pretty normal.”
Incorrect. Stop fabricating false info.
“The flurry of changes at the White House and cabinet level so early in a president’s administration is “unprecedented,” according to Max Stier, the president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that specializes in federal government management issues.
“The disruption is highly consequential,” Mr. Stier said. “When you lose a leader, it has a cascade effect throughout the organization.”
A New York Times analysis of 21 top White House and cabinet positions back to President Bill Clinton’s first term shows how unusual the upheaval is through the first 14 months of a presidency. Nine of these positions have turned over at least once during the Trump administration, compared with three at the same point of the Clinton administration, two under President Barack Obama and one under President George W. Bush.”
So the subjective observations of someone from an NGO are a substitute for facts ?
With respect to your NYT article:
It is statistically trivial to say – this particular combination of events has never happened before.
It is also meaningless.
Apparently you do not recall the start of the Clinton Presidency – I do. I think Clinton had two different AG nominees withdrawal – and that is before anyone was appointed.
I also find both yours and Stier’s claim bizzarre.
Let’s say that “turnover” has the effect Stier claims – isn’t that what the left wants ?
You are trying to make getting what you want into a crime ?
You have not presented evidence of anything unusual.
Equally important you have not presented evidence of anything meaningful.
Is the Trump administration unable to advance its policy agenda ?
There are numerous balls in the air right now – progress seems to be being made on all.
There is no evidence there is a “crisis”.
Further, Trump was elected to drain the swamp, and because we expected he would be demanding.
I never watched the apprentice – but as I understand it nearly everyone gets fired.
That is what we expected.
It is also how free market structures work. It is called creative destruction.
Do your job or be gone.
We could use that permeating the entire government.
Lois Lehner – lied under Oath.
AG Holder – held in contempt of congress for failure to produce subpoenaed documents.
AG Lynch lied about a highy unethical meeting with Bill Clinton and then conducted an investigation to find who leaked the truth.
Rice and Powers – unmasked – aka spied on hundreds of americans without warrants.
Rice repeatedly publicly lied about Benghazi
Hillary lied under oath and in discovery regarding her private email server.
Clinton Aides – almost certainly lied and were involved in the destruction of evidence
McCabe lied under oath repeatedly
And I can go on and on and on.,
My question si why aren’t the above facing prosecution ?
Why is it that you only care about the relatively inconsequential misconduct of republicans.
Wow!
As more details of this are coming out, this is less and less of an outrage and less and less of an issue.
What is currently being reported is that this “investigation” started with Mueller, but that he dumped it back to Rosenstein who threw it to the NYC USADA as being outside Muellers scope.
That is a good sign. It suggests that Mueller has some concept he is not empowered to investigate whatever he finds interesting..
It also suggests that much of Muellers existing prosecutions are likely to be farmed out, as they have nothing to do with his scope.
The next question is what did Mueller refer and what is the NYC USADA investigating, and what was subpeonad.
What I am reading thus far suggests this is about Cohen/daniels and also about the spiked Nat Enq story.
Two factors to note:
1). If the Mueller thought the Cohen/Daniels or the Net Enquire spiking were Trump campaign related – they might arguably remain in his scope. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that these are NOT being explored as campaign related. That is a big deal as it disposes of most left wing nut egregiously broad interpretations of campaign laws.
2). Cohen appears to be the target – Not Trump. Cohen has repeatedly asserted he has acted entirely on his own. If Mueller and the NYC USADA accepted that – there is no issue of Attorney client priviledge at all.
This is part of why we need to get the facts. If this is an investigation of Cohen and Nat Enq. Purely, then there is no issue of priviledge AND The NYC USADA may not access any communications of Cohen and Trump.
Alan Derschowitz is going off about violations of attorney client priviledge – and he is absolutely right – if that is occurring.
But so long as this is NOT about Cohen-Trump and only about Cohen, there is no problem.
I have been thoroughly unimpressed by Cohen as an attorney.
I think there are numerous stupid things he did here.
But there is nothing I have heard about Cohen or this mess so far that constitutes a crime.
Absent some fact we do not know there was no basis for a warrant – even if as appears to be the case that warrant is limited to Cohen’s payments to Daniels.
BTW that means all this nonsense about AC priviledge is a pointless digression.
Cohen acting on his own is not privileged.
I still think the warrant is unjustified – there is no crime here – unless bad lawyering is a crime.
“I still think the warrant is unjustified – there is no crime here – unless bad lawyering is a crime.”
Statements like this are why I consider you a Bloviating Fool.
You don’t know the nature of the charges. But you disparage them anyway?
Dave, really, what the f*&# is wrong with you?
“Statements like this are why I consider you a Bloviating Fool.
You don’t know the nature of the charges. But you disparage them anyway?
Dave, really, what the f*&# is wrong with you?”
So you can identify a crime ?
There are no charges – that is the point.
Do you understand that secret investigations of secret crimes is the stuff of “star chambers” ?
Warrants in the US are normally a matter of public record.
It is highly unusually when they are not.
So tell me – what Crime was alleged ?
We do not grant warrants to investigate whimsy.
We investigate crimes.
BTW what was the crime being investigated when Carter Page was being surveilled ?
Apparently despite US law making warrants public record, even congress is not allowed to know.
If the NYC USADA is unable to articulate in public the crime he is investigating, then what we have is a start chamber.
The same with Mueller.
Every once in a while you mumble something about the rule of law, yet you are clueless.
We are entitled to know that our law enforcement is not on a snipe hunt.
Jay, you are a masochist. 🙂
Dduck
Zuckerburg just testified before the senate. I did not watch all of his testimony, but there was an excellent exchange with Senator Cruz.
Though honestly Cruz deliberatly did not go far enough.
Cruz pointed out that DMCA section 230 protections against government and other liability require that one is a “neutral public forum”..
It was self evident from Zuckerburg’s testimony that Facebook is NOT a neutral publive forum.
Zeckerburg testified about a number of spcific things that Facebook actively sensors.
The choices he made were deliberately to avoid conflict with Sen. Cruz – I mean who can oppose Facebook censoring terrorists, self harm, or nudity, or “hate speach”. foreign election interference.
But in fact censoring any of those precludes one from being a neutral public forum.
I do not care whether Facebook is neutral or not.
But we should quite pretending otherwise.
Most of us at this point grasp that the media is by and large heavily left leaning.
Outlets like Fox and Brietbart exist because of that heavy tilt left.
And that is entirely OK.
Regardless, Facebook has a choice – it can be neutral or it can censor and if so be open about that censorship.
Pretending to be neutral while concurrently censoring – and particularly in a non-transparent way, is a form of fraud. It is telling people they are getting one thing when they are getting another.
I would suggest that Zuckerburg and the rest of you might want to read or reread
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”/
Click to access liberty.pdf
Declare any point of view as so heinous that it can not be expressed deprives all of us, and actually destroys our ability to understand why that view is heinous.
We can not know our own position if we are not exposed to those views we disagree with.
We are actually served by the presence of those views that offend us, rather than harmed by them.
Heterodox Accademy and Prof. Haidt have just published “All Minus One”
This is a free rewrite of John Stuart Mill’s Chapter 2 in “On Liberty” updated to modern language and revised to eliminate obscure historical references.
https://adobe.ly/2Er7XdI
The FBI was told a 19 year old psychopath was going to murder children at school, they did nothing!
A pornstar says she had an affair with the President, and they raided the President’s attorney’s office. What’s wrong with this picture?
What’s wrong is you moronically conflating the two.
“What’s wrong is you moronically conflating the two.”
I thought that was a very good question. Why do you not think they are not comparable situations? I do not see where Dave conflated (mixed, blended, fused, united, or integrated) the two. He compared the two situations and said “The FBI was told a 19 year old psychopath was going to murder children at school, they did nothing! A pornstar says she had an affair with the President, and they raided the President’s attorney’s office. What’s wrong with this picture?” He compared the two situations and wanted to know how the one that they had information on being a possible mass murder taking place was ignored and the other is about the president screwing a ho in CA and the FBI sends multiple agents to confiscate records.
Is that keeping us safe and out of harms way?
On second thought Jay, let everyone else answer that. With your extreme dislike for Trump, anything they can do to him keeps us safe in your mind.
With the latter – we still have no basis to grasp that there was a crime involved.
One of the disturbing aspects of the entire Government investigations into Trump is that it is not even rooted in actual allegations of criminal conduct.
I would have to re-read the Steele Dossier allegations – but I am not even sure any of those are actual allegations of a crime.
The left remains under the delusion that they are free to use government to dig into whatever they do not like.
The investigation of Clinton was a criminal investigation. All of us knew what crime was being investigated – both in the sense of being able to look up the specific crime and in the general sense of knowing that the alleged conduct was a crime.
With respect to Trump – not only do we not know if Trump committed a crime, we do not even know what underlying crime he is alleged to have committed.
As many have noted – there is no crime of collusion.
Again I would refer to Leventia Berria “Show me the man, I will show you the crime”.
I would note AGAIN that it is the left that has repeatedly and historically converted ideological differences into crimes.
And that is precisely what is going on.
Not merely with the Trump investigation, but more generally.
Concepts like micro-agressions, no-platforming, the entire tirade of the left, is an effort to demonize and where possible criminalize any differences.
You may not even think differently without being relentlessly pummeled and labeled as a “hateful, hating hater”.
“What’s wrong is you moronically conflating the two.”
The statement was not mine.
Nor is there anything moronic about it
It is inherently obvious to most anyone that the attention of the FBI, the left AND YOU is on voluntary agreements with pornstar’s not the lives and safety of children.
Good story about critical thinking, media bias and “fake news”
https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/how-to-sniff-out-fake-news?platform=hootsuite
I would expand further – most journalists provide information regarding their sources.
The more specific the source information is the more likely it is to be credible.
A source says
A former administration source says
A state department source says
and the state department press secretary says
are each increasing credibility.
Multiple independent sources add to credibility.
It should also never be forgotten that sources have their own axes to grind and bias’s.
Under critical analysis much of what is floating about Pruitt is much ado about nothing.
Given the effort that landlord went to get her key back from Pruitt any assertion that there was some quid pro quo going on is ludicrous. The landlord has successfully angered Pruitt, that is not a recipe for political corruption.
IT should not be surprising that the leak originated from an X whitehouse staffer with an axe to grind.
One should also try to separate the spin from the facts.
There have been myriads of Mueller is about to drop the atomic bomb stories.
A significant portion of these have in some ways been true.
But absolutely zero have ever lived up to the hype.
We are farther away from impeaching Trump or truly getting into his inner circle than ever.
Thus far Mueller while adopting broad interpretations of money laundering, has generally not bought the incredibly expansive interpretations of other laws the left is constantly selling.
Dave, this is accurate, correct?
NY Times Editors:
“Mr. Trump has spent his career in the company of developers and celebrities, and also of grifters, cons, sharks, goons and crooks. He cuts corners, he lies, he cheats, he brags about it, and for the most part, he’s gotten away with it, protected by threats of litigation, hush money and his own bravado. “
And he is a lousy dresser with baggy pants and boring ties. I think he is also stupid, but his craftiness obscures that.
“And he is a lousy dresser with baggy pants and boring ties.”
Views regarding his attire are opinions. but I tend to agree with yours.
“I think he is also stupid, but his craftiness obscures that.”
An obviously self contradictory statement.
What you call “craftiness” does not obscure intelligence, it demonstrates it.
It is clearly not accidental.
I think Trump is less intelligent than he thinks, but obviously more intelligent than you think.
Trump has succeeded in multiple endeavors in radically different areas,
real estate, Beauty Pageants, Television, and politics.
That is the hallmark of a highly intelligent person.
Many of the people you likely consider to be brilliant have not succeeded in multiple different areas.
It is a statement primarily of opinion not fact, and near certainly atleast partly false.
Who Trump has spent his carreer in the company of is of consequence with respect to deciding how to vote. It is not otherwise evidence of anything.
The “grifters, cons, sharks, goons and crooks” that he purportedly associates with are the very same people litterally that the Clinton’s do. Includes people like Oprah, Epstein, Weinstein.
As a question of fact it is NOT a reasonable inference that any voluntary exchange involves
“cutting corners, lying, and cheating” absent an actual court finding against Trump to that effect.
And even that would only speak to a single instance.
The only legitimate inference that can be made from a voluntary exchange is that the participants were BOTH satisfied, otherwise it would not have happened.
People often brag about things that are false. Further again EVERY voluntary exchange REQUIRES both parties to believe they got the better deal – otherwise it would not happen.
Even the simple exchange of $1 for a hamburger will not occur unless the buyer values the hamburger at more than $1 and the seller values $1 more than the hamburger.
Trump like just about every wealthy person is intensely litigated against.
He has chosen to use threats of litigation and counter litigation as a means of protecting what he believes are his rights.
I have no idea what “hush money” is.
NDA’s are perfectly legal. I sign several every year, I think most people in in business where information has value do.
It is generally illegal to pay or threaten people to preclude exposing a crime. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with inducements in return for silence.
Trump certainly has lots of bravado.
Stupid is as stupid says and does.
craftiness – shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in deception. cunning, foxiness, guile, slyness, wiliness, craft. astuteness, perspicaciousness, perspicacity, shrewdness – intelligence manifested by being astute (as in business dealings)
They can and are separate in Trump’s case.
I would sugest looking into some of the information on the study of personality, and particularly intelligence.
All the items on your lists are really mixtures of other key elements of personality.
Whether Trump is crafty, shrewd, deceptive, cunning, foxy, guiling, sly. astute, ….
is a valid open question
Whether skill at these requires intelligence is a closed question.
You want to claim that Trump is both stupid and darkly intelligent at the same time.
That is not possible.
Intelligence can manifest itself in positive or negative fashion, but it is still intelligence.
I think you will find it tends to manifest more commonly in a positive fashion – though not necescarily your idea of positive, because you do not grasp that self interest is POSITVE not negative, so long as one does not mix self interest with fraud or force.
Regardless, “altruism” is not the most positive construction of intelligence.
The greatest benefit for the greatest numbers does not come from self sacrifice, but from self interest.
Altruism is the maximum positive incarnation of emotion – not intellect, and in the real world while still good significantly underperforms self interest.
Put more simply China’s small increases in individual liberty have benefited more of mankind in the past 40 years than all altruism in human history.
Mother Theresa is not a blip in comparison.
And China’s gains are not the consequence of alruism, or even of good people.
The greatest good does not come from self sacrifice.
Well it appears we are stuck with Mueller for awhile.Code of Federal Regulations governing how and who can fire a special counsel states:
“The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.”
Nixon could not remove the SC during Watergate, so he fired his AG and his staff becasue the AG would not fire the SC.
So everyone demanding Mueller be fired may need to take a step back. Unless Trump gets pissed off enough and then fires Sessions and Rosenstein and hires someone willing to fire Mueller.
I would not cry a tear if Sessions was fired, but if Trump did that so he could get rid of Mueller, that would damage Trump more (IMO) than leaving him to investigate.
I do not think that Mueller is going to be removed.
But the law you cite is not actually relevant, it did not apply during watergate, nor would that have mattered.
The entire power of the executive vests SOLELY with the president.
That is the constitution.
Removing Mueller not only would be legal, but actually barring it would be unconstitutional.
Trump could and likely would be impeached for it – but impeachment is a political not legal process.
Watching 20th century congressmen/women question Marc Zuckerberg in congressional hearings is like watching a Swedish heart surgeon explain heart transplants to an all English speaking audience. They haven’t a clue how social media works and they are the ones that will write 20th century legislation to oversee 21’st technology. Most times congressional incompetence is overshadowed by the fact many people do not have a clue as to what they are talking about, but in this case, many people understand what Zuckerberg is saying and it is flying 10 ft over the members head. They as a incoherent question, he answers with a coherent answer and they follow up with a incoherent question.
I found it even more bizarre than you did.
Notably with Zuckerberg propped upon a thick cushion so it wouldn’t look like a precocious kid explaining physics to a panel of doddering octogenarians
After I posted tat comment I thought the senators should have their interns asking the questions. At least they would know how to followup with a clarifying question.
Zuckerburg was facing some significant danger, and I think he made some potentially dangerous mistakes.
Several times “Neutral Public Platform” came up and Zuckerburg avoided that.
NPP has significance according to the law. If FB is an NPP then it has section 230 protection from a huge amount of liability. But if it is no NPP it can be both sued and held accountable by government for its content.
Zuckerburgs comments that really separated FB from NPP create significant legal liability for FB.
While I found some of it interesting – it was also stupid
Congress does not know what to do, and hopefully is smart enough to do nothing.
But Zuckerburg is not much better.
He is talking about being able to supress “hate speach” before it is posted in several years – as if that is a good thing.
It is NEVER a good idea for someone to have that kind of power over the expression of others.
There is no way that it is not abused.
There is already alot of flack because most social media is more tightly censoring the right than the left.
ZuckerBurg talks about curating hate speach and terrorists, and pornography as if that is inherently good. That may be a hard sell but censorship is never a good thing.
We need the bad so that we know what is bad, and so that we can still tell that it is bad, and so that we can compare the really really bad to other things and tell whehter they are moving toward good or evil. We also need it to know who we are, and who we arent;.
We will not get better as people overall by having offensive views censored, will will near certainly get worse not better.
“It is NEVER a good idea for someone to have that kind of power over the expression of others.
There is no way that it is not abused.”
This is a publically owned company and they have the right to accept or deny whatever they want showing on their platform. If people do not like Facebook monitoring, censoring, selling or handling information in the way they are or will handle it, they do not need to use Facebook. No one will ever convince me that newspapers years ago and today, or the MSM do not “censor” information that they report. And those are actually “free press”. facebook is not a news outlet from my understanding. And if investors do not like what the leadership is doing, they can either vote in new directors or sell their investments.
Ron,
We are not disagreeing.
I am not asking FB to be regulated. I am begging as hard as I can to avoid that.
i would eliminate what regulation exists.
The worst possible outcome would be for FB to have the capability Zuckerburg is expecting to have, AND to be compelled to use it in some particular way (ANY particular way) by covernment regulation.
You note things like the displeasure of users and shareholders as constraints on FB – and I fully agree. But those constraints are actually weakened by regulations.
When Government says you must do X – you do X. Shareholders do not revolt – because it is pointless, FB must do X. users may grumble – but they can not go elsewhere, because everyone must do X.
Only anarcho-capitalists beleive the free markets capacity for self regulation is sufficient to constrain the initiation of force without government. But it is ultimately capable of constraining everything all other undesirable conduct – atleast better than any other arrangement.
The addition of regulations does nto make the market work better, it makes them work worse.
Regulation weakens distorts and often destroys market self regulation.
Markets inherently seek to optimize – looking for loopholes and means to subvert regulation – whether self regulation or that of government.
But self regulation is dynamic – if the response of the market to self regulation is negative, market self regulation will adjust pushing the market towards the wants and needs of users.
Government regulation is static, if the market response is negative, it can take decades – if ever to correct.
Further government regulation works differently. Self regulation is inherently utilitarian. Seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Government regulation seeks the best outcome for some small group on a single criteria. It seeks the optimum for some favored group, not for all.
Contra the left – it is government rather than markets that are far more likely to favor the big and the rich.
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=491CA775-E952-4A60-93B9-891C130B8F73
This seems to codify what Dave said was not already present from a previous posts I shared. Nice to see that legislators can work together every few years. I guess ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true in this case.
My only objection is the comment that this will provide the SC to “have the independence they need to conduct fair and impartial investigations. I would like to see wording in this bill that solidifies as to how “impartial” is defined.
This is a mistake.
The fundimental problem with the SC – is that it is part of the executive.
There were problems with the IC act that was used with Clinton, but this is worse.
This bill reads as horribly unconstitutional to me.
The president is constitutuionally the head of the exectutive,
Congress can not make laws regarding the powers of the president – not without rewriting the constitution.
The SC must be answerable to someone. There are only 3 possible choices:
The PResident – in which case the president can fire the person investigating him.
I would ask what is the enforcement mechanism for this law ?
Trump fires Mueller now – what happens ? Probably impeachment.
This law passes, and Trump fires Mueller – what happens ? Probably impeachment.
You want to protect the SC – make them part of the judiciary or the legislature.
One of the problems with Mueller is that he is LESS accountable than Ken Starr.
Star had to get congressional approval for every scope change.
While there was an element of partisanship, we knew what he was investigating and what crime he was alleging.
Mueller is answerable to Rosenstein – though not really, and Rosenstein is answerable to no one.
Worse Rosenstein has more reason to recuse than Sessions.
Rosenstein signed the FISA warrant. He can not participate in an investigation that has a polluted source that he is part of.
I actually think that Trump would be doing better with an IC and a democratic congress supervising them.
The IC would be accountable to congress and congress would be answerable to the people.
Mueller should not be subject to firing by Trump.
But he should be answerable to someone.
This law makes what is wrong worse, not better.
Nonsense, my craftiness list is from a dictionary, I would not be so kind if I described his craftiness. Despite your b——–, he is still stupid.
Where your list comes from is irrelevant.
You still can not have an atom without protons.
All the attributes you assert for “crafitness” require intelligence.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
The above is only true in the real world, you can create hypothetical worlds where the rules of logic do not exist and contradictions abound.
But we do not inhabit any of those worlds, and I am interested in the real world.
Where you will find if you work to purge contradictions you can get rid of alot of garbage that precludes you from seeing the world as it is.
More BS, Mr.Mucus. Stupid is as stupid bloviates applies to Trump and you.
More ad hominem as a substitute for argument.
“In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.”
Robert Jackson – FDR’s AG and future Supreme Court Justice.
This is fundimentally what is wrong right now.
It is what is wrong with Mueller, it is what was wrong with what Started under Obama, it is what is wrong with many posters here.
We investigate Crimes not people.
We do not ever want the power of law enforcement targeting an individual rather than investigating a crime.
We do not want that from the local beat cop,
We do not want that from a DOJ/FBI investigation of the president.
Andrew McCarthy has another intesting editorial a few days ago.
His editorial of almost a year ago criticizing the Rosenstein authorization Memo for Mueller resulted in Rosenstein crafting a much more thorough memo in August.
But that Memo was (and remains) classified, however a very heavily redacted versiojn of it has been released.
McCarthy’s review of that notes:
First that Rosenstein appear to deliberately write this memo to address the legal concern’s McCarthy had raised month’s earlier.
And that it had actually made things WORSE rather than better.
Much is difficult to tell – because of heavy redacting.
But though more detail exists – fundimentally confirming that this is an improper counter-intelligence investigation, and not a criminal investigation, much is still difficult to tell.
Maybe hidden in the redaction is something that actually justifies this.
But it gets increasingly unlikely.
One thing that McCarthy notes is that the Steele Dossier REMAINS a significant part of the justification. And that is deeply disturbing and problematic.
We not only have an investigation that started over salacious allegations that remain to this date unverfied, but those same allegations remain central
Many people are advising Trump to do many many things.
Most of that advice is bad. But McCarthy to me appears to have good advise.
McCarthy notes that the president has the power not merely to fire Mueller but to give direction to the Justice department.
Just recently – because the House threatened to impeach Wray and Rosenstein, and AG Sessions directed compliance, Nunes and Gowdy were permitted to view an ALMOST unredacted version of the FISA Warrant applications. Any basis for the warrants aside from the Steele Dossier exists only in the tiny redacted portions. It is increasingly likely that the SOLE basis for the Warrants was the Steele Dossier.
It is well past Time for Trump to ORDER the DOJ/FBI to comply with legislative oversight requests that they have been actively thwarting.
Overtime more and more is coming to light, and yet nothing coming to the surface justifies the DOJ/FBI digging in.
It looks increasingly like the FBI/DOJ failure to cooperate with congress is rooted in self protection rather than genuine security issues.
I beleive it is Byron York who noted that any legitimate national security interest that DOJ/FBI are protecting is dwarfed by the need of congress and the public to know whether there is a legitimate basis for anything that is occurring.
If there is and was a valid basis for this investigation then all the investigation fo the investigation should cease.
If there is not – then the investigation itself should cease and the investigation into how the hell we got into this should be magnified.
DOJ/FBI are actively running interferance for Mueller, as if there is a conspiracy – the hope that Mueller will find something sufficiently damaging to retro-actively justify the investigation, before the corrption of the roots of the investigation are exposed.
I would further note this failure of the executive to cooperate with congressional oversight was a hallmark of the Obama administration, and has somehow continued into the Trump administration.
We know many things historicially.
The government classifies many times what it should.
That the executive leaks like a seive.
Partly as a quasi official means to back channel things to the press is a deniable means,
Partly as a consequence of Whistle Blowers,
Partly as a part of political conflicts in the executive. Pruitts current ethics issues are aparently the direct response to Portman’s axe grinding over his termination.
Regardless, the executive leaks.
Congress leaks too – for many of the same reasons.
All of the above do not alter the fact that oversight of the executive is the responsibility of the congress, and the executive should have very limited ability to bar congress from the information needed for oversight.
That we investigate the person to find the crime is being accepted by too many and ignored by many others. Those that do not have a clue about the constitution, rights and previous rulings by courts do not understand a crime needs to be the basis of any investigation. Once there is no evidence that a crime has not been committed or that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge, the investigation needs to be terminated.
But once politics enters into the realm of the investigation and the sole purpose of the investigation is to prolong the investigation so the news of the day is the next small fish that gets caught in the net, it is no longer a legal matter, but it is a campaign matter where negative news is being generated to promote one party or the other.
Right now it is get Trump.no matter what. Much like the GOP did with Obama even though they had nothing to hang him with, they investigated in congress on many different issues. Make sure Trump has a house that will begin impeachment proceedings, even though they have no leg to stand on, but will make good news for them for the 2020 election.
Who the hell is stupid enough to want to be the leader of this country when you have to put up with the crap Obama and Trump have had to put up with? And one could go back years and find other examples, but nothing to the degree we have had since 2008. And it will only get worse since social media and the 24/7 non stop news has so much more today to work with than ever before. I don’t think the Pope would be clean enough to be able to run this country and not have someone dig up some dirt somewhere to make an issue for 4+ years.
Ron,
Congressional investigations and congressional oversight are DIFFERENT,
Though I would prefer congress did not investigate a person, And I think that the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder reflects that,
Congresses oversight power is broad. It is not constrained as a criminal investigation is.
AND Congress can not prosecute someone criminally.
There are sometimes revolting aspects of politicians trying to “get each other” but there is nothing wrong with it.
There is everything wrong with using the criminal machinery of government to conduct a political investigation.
The problem with the Steele Dossier is NOT that Clinton “paid” for it,
It is that without verification the FBI used it as the foundation of an investigation.
If congress wishes to engage in these types of political games – they are answerable tot he voters.
But they have no place in the DOJ/FBI.
I do not care that those on the left wish to “Get Trump”.
I think that is politically unwise, and likely to backfire, but they are free to do so.
But DOJ/FBI are NOT a political tool – not for Nixon, Not for Obama, Not for Trump.
Here is a good Cato podcast
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/attorney-client-privilege-prosecutorial-accountability
Well I did not say what I meant clear enough. I could care less what congress does from a political issue. That’s what they do.
I was addressing Mueller specifically as I truly believe this is a political snipe hunt that is leading no where, he knows it is leading no where and he is doing anything and everything to prolong this investigation so he finds the next “fish” to fry and see if that fish will lead to some more guppies, all while trying to keep this in the mainstream media until the election.
I also expect many of his little fish charges will come to trial or will be settled with fan fare around October 2018 so that is the major news just before the election to give the democrats the best environment for taking back the house and the senate.
And then congress can go off on their tangent and begin impeachment proceedings. That will energize the left base and provide the democrats with the best chances of sweeping all three legs of government. (I include SCOTUS as Warren/Brown/Biden will insure a far far left court once they are in office and nominate candidates a far left senate will ratify.)
Cato as well as many others point out that we have so many laws – and the left is interpretting them all so broadly, that it would actually be surprising if they do not eventually find something.
That is a part of what is wrong with investigating the man rather than the crime.
If you follow Prof. Tribe – someone I used to respect and whom I have debated, and attended his speaking events, you can get bat shit crazy broad interpretations of the law to nail trump.
No one has ever before tried to claim that a president or prosecutor obstructed justice by their otherwise legal choices as part of their role.
Prosecutors constantly choose not to prosecute someone – it is called prosecutorial discretion and Comey EXPLICITLY did that with Clinton.
Plenty of people cried foul. No one called Comey a Criminal or claimed he obstructed justice.
The President is the “chief prosecutor” just as he is the commander in cheif.
He is free to direct Comey not to prosecute Flynn.
But Mueller is still investigating that for possible obstruction of justice.
BTW Obama publicly exhonerated Clinton in the middle of the Clinton email investigation.
It is bad for a President to weigh in. It is especially bad for a president to weigh in publicly.
It is NOT a crime. But we are still chasing that.
With the latest Cohen nonsense, as I understand it one of the claims is that if Cohen paid Daniels not to speak during the election, that is somehow an illegal campaign contribution.
Personally I think out campaign finance laws all need to go. They are unconstitutional.
But ignoring that, any interpretation of Cohen’s actions that make them a campaign contribution would criminalize virtually anything you might do that benefited a candidate.
Put up a sign in your front yard – illegal campaign contribution.
Drive people to vote – illegal campaign contribution.
I would note that the Daniels thing is MORE tangential than my example.
i.e. Trump likely benefited from Daniels silence, but the benefit was pretty indirect.
A sign in your yard is litterally a clear contribtion to a specific candidate.
Driving people to vote is clearly an election activity.
While it is probable that paying for someones silence during a campaign is intended to influence that campaign, it is still indirect.
Settling an embarrasing lawsuit – Trump did that, could be an illegal campaign contribution.
The more attentuated things become the more clear it is that this is not about the law, it is about getting someone you do not like.
There is also the claim that Trump or Cohen may be lying about who paid who.
So What ?
Lying about something that is not a crime, is not a crime.
This claim that scurilous actions are also crimes pervades this.
Anytime you can say Trump and Russia in the same sentence those on the left hear clear Crime.
Yet, saying Clinton and Russia together does not produce the same reaction.
Trump is associated with some pretty scuirlous dudes. But lest we forget most everyone associated with Trump is also associated with Clinton.
One of Clinton’s moneymen/lobiests is a Company A figure in Mueller’s indictment of Manafort.
Basically Manafort was paying a clinton lobbying firm to perform the lobbying that Mueller claims Manafort was illegally doing. Talk about selective prosecution.
Regardless, Manafort was paid by Ukrainians for lots of things.
Most of us hold our noses. This stinks. But it is still not a crime.
Nor is putting your payments into foreign bank accounts.
And in fact the money does not actually become taxable until it enters the US.
MAYBE Manafort engaged in tax evasion when he used foreign funds to buy properties and then mortgaged the properties to get cash. It sure looks that way. But it is NOT money laundering.
Nor is keeping money in secret foreign bank accounts – BTW all bank accounts are “secret”.
You do not report your bank accounts on your tax return. You report income, not assets. You do not have to tell the IRS where that income currently is, only that you made it.
Regardless, Mueller seems to like Money Launder claims. You would think that such a high profile attorney would actually know what money laundering is.
The Cato podcast also points out that assuming that muellers or other prosecutors actions are legitimate because they are subject to scrutiny is ludicrously stupid.
Prosecutors and FBI agents have lied under oath, manufactured evidence in numerous cases – including some Mueller was part of, and the worst that has ever happened is a lateral transfer.
McCabe getting fired is HIGHLY unusual.
In prior posts I noted that Mueller past has numerous instances of over zealousness, arrogance and bad prosecutions. But aparently I was not aware of all of them – as more are coming out.
Aparently a high profile mess in Boston according to Dershowitz.
Anyway, I do not care if politicians go after each other.
But when the powers of government are used to criminalize politics we are going to hell.
I would further note.
I want investigations of politicians – for their actions as public servants.
I want lots of that. I want people in government to lose their jobs for misconduct.
Mostly I do not want them to go to jail though some cases are special.
McCabe is noted for using his power to “get” others. He is a key figure in “getting” Flynn, and has an axe to grind with Flynn.
I am less generous about abuse of power by law enforcement, and I am less generous about letting people off who had no problems persecuting others.
I would be perfectly happy with a permanent “special counsel” actively (and quietly) seeking criminal misconduct throughout government. That said – I do NOT want broad and creative interpretations of the law to “get” someone.
I am finding some of the Pruitt news hilarious. Purportedly Pruitt got a sweetheart deal on daily rental of a condo in Georgetown. Of course several others are renting the same condo at the same rates. But the condo owner’s husband is someone who MIGHT be part of a business the EPA regulates – the EPA regulates pretty much every business.
Anyway apparently Pruitt quit paying the rent and kept using the condo despite demand letters – until the landlord changed the locks on him. No as a landlord – that is something I have a problem with. Regardless, if this is some kind of a political deal – why would you piss off the head of the EPA by changing the locks on them ?
Those on the left think all business relationships are really back scratching and criminally corrupt.
In the real world most people do not make business deals with friends. It is really really dangerous.
In the real world when you are actually paying somebody off politically – you do not change the locks on them.
Regardless, put Pruitt under the microscope. But be real at the same time.
You do not need an ethics committee to know that a financial entanglement that ended with locks being changed was not quid pro quo bribery. Move on to something productive.
…“Once there is no evidence that a crime has not been committed or that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge, the investigation needs to be terminated.”
Well then, you agree that the Whitewater investigation
by independent counsel Kenneth Starr who determined the Clintons didn’t do anything criminal relating to it, shouldn’t have investigated the Monica blow job story.
Well, was Monica forced to suck his junk? Was Monica under age? What was the crime? Or was it that Clinton lied about something that was not illegal happening?
I did not support the GOP effort to impeach him when the real rapes or attempted rapes went without question for the most part.
So you make my point. Starr couldnt hang any crime on Clinton, so he kept digging until he had enough dirt to make his existence seem like the money spent was worth it.
In a deposition in a sexual harrasment case, Bill Clinton testified that he had not had sex with Lewinsky.
That was a lie – under oath.
THAT is what Starr was investigating.
Having Sex with Lewinsky was not illegal.
BUT it was relevant to a sexual harrasment lawsuit, and Clinton lied about something germain to that lawsuit UNDER OATH.
That is far more serious than anything Mueller has charged thus far.
I opposed and still do allowing the sexual harrasment suit to procede while Clinton was president.
Conversely Starr was accountable to congress, and did seek and receive authorization for each shift in the investigation AND closed down investigations that did not lead to Clinton.
Further Starr did little to prosecute “the little people” though he did leave Susan McDougal in jail half of forever in contempt because she refused to testify.
The difference between Starr kept digging to come up with the blow job lying and Mueller-vrs-Trump is as follows:
Mueller didn’t have to do much digging. Obstruction of Justice was almost immediately apparent, a Siamese twin charge from the get go.
The Clinton’s INDIVIDUALLY (Bill & Hill) were the primary political target of the Whitewater Special Prosecutor(s). The charge was based on suspicion of their illegal self enrichment. Hillary willingly testified before a Grand Jury. B. Clinton didn’t threaten to get rid of prosecutor. He didn’t threaten to get rid of the head of the DOJ. HE DIDNT CLAIM THE FBI was out to get him.
Mueller’s charge was BROADER. To investigate Russia election tampering in the election and for possible collusion with the Trump CAMPAIGN. And to report on any other irregularities that became apparent DURING the investigation.
Here’s the original letter to Mueller. Read the language. Particularly the “any matters” that may arise from the investigation. And show me where Mueller has deviated from his authority.
Mueller has noted that Trump is a subject. As you are an idiot that is proof that there is no obstruction. The moment Mueller decides that anything Trump has done MIGHT constitute obstruction he must not merely treat Trump as a target, but he must tell him so.
This however should not be surprising, the obstruction matter has been beaten to death.
The federal law on obstruction does not support the claim – not even if Trump was not president and had no power to direct Comey.
The FACT that he was president and had the constitutional power to direct Comey absolutely means there can not be any obstruction.
The left constantly makes this mistake regarding Trump.
Any action that another president would be constitutionally authorized to do, and would be legal if he did, must also be legal for trump.
By asserting obstruction – you prove conclusively that you are deeply biased, live in a bubble and lawless. The law must be the same for all of us, or we are lawless.
Pres. Obama publicly stated early in the Clinton Email investigation that she had not committed a crime. That was a stupid remark, but it was not obstruction.
There is ZERO difference between that remark and the remark regarding Flynn.
Firing Comey was not obstruction – the president can fire whoever he wants. Comey acknowledged that. Firing Comey did not stop the investigation – and Trump knew that before hand. Nor would it have been obstruction if he did.
Further as we now know – through Comey’s firing, the FBI had pretty much nothing EXCEPT the “unverified and salacious” (quote from Comey’s May 2017 testimony) Steele Dossier.,
There is increasingly little we do not know about the FISA Warrant, and it is increasingly self evident that it was the sole or nearly sole source for several warrants. That the FBI has even todate been able to verify little of it. Comey now makes a big deal out of Trump purportedly asking Comey to investigate the “Russian Prostitute Pee story” vigorously telling Comey it was a lie and to go out and investigate and publicly state the results of that investigation.
Comey spin’s this as an effort the President sought to use the FBI as his private investigative service. But isn’t the real question why was the FBI using a source whose reliability it did not know to seek a warrant ? Instead of burning Trump, Comey burns himself.
You do not seem to grasp that Law Enforcement does not just go to a judge and say “we want a warrant”. The 4th amendment requires that the officer SWEAR that probable cause – that is information from reliable sources, exists, not merely that a specific crime was committed, but that the search being conducted will provide FURTHER evidence of that. ‘
If as an example a drug informant has been 70% reliable in the past – that is NOT sufficient to get a warrant.
From Comey’s book we now know that he leaked to NYT the story that Trump was not being “spied on” – both a lie and a criminal leak about an ongoing investigation – and you think this man should not have been fired ?
Whether you like it or not, what is increasing evident is that this investigation was corrupt and criminal from the begining.
Trump’s mistake was not in firing Comey – but everyone associated with it – and particularly the Steele Dossier, form the begining.
You complain that Trump is Tyranical and authoritarian. But as numerous people have pointed out as President Trump has NOT acted nearly as aggressively as he should have.
Rather than Talk to Comey about investigating the “Pee” claim. He should have ordered that DOJ/FBI individually attempt to verify each claim in the Steele Dossier and publicly report on them.
Even now he should ORDER DOJ/FBI to cooperate with congress.
Rosenstein, Wray, McCabe, Strzok, Comey, and numerous others have had access to the unredacted FISA warrant application from day one. Rep’s Nune’s and Gowdy of the HPSCI are not permitted to see the entire unredacted application. Each of the above people have sworn to uphold the constittution. Each has a top Secret Security clearance.
There are a few recognized priviledges that allow the executive to bar the release of information to congress. National Security can only be used to prevent those with no need to know and no security clearance from access to information. DOJ/FBI are not allowed to decide what their congressional overseers “need to know” and they have clearances.
Except that this digging of heels in and failing to provide congress with subpeona’s information was the pattern during the Obama administration – by mostly the same people. it would be highly unusual. As more and more has gotten out, it is evident that FBI/DOJ are not protecting the country, they are protecting themselves. FBI/DOJ are not even under the control of their own leaders. Sessions has repeatedly ordered that the requested materials be turned over to congress and that redations be minimized. Wray has doubled the staff dealing with the release of infomation, and promised Congress that materials would be turned over quickly – and yet over 3 months, with something like 100 people working on producing for congress only about 1000 pages have been turned over – that is something like 10 man days per page.
There is definitely obstruction of justice – but it is not Trump
Hillary was never the Target of Starr’s investigations.
Starr has written that he had more than enough evidence to indict Hillary on multiple issues that he was investigating.
Starr has made clear that congress authorized him to investigate the president.
That his actions with others were solely in furtherance of investigating the president.
That unrelated crimes, or crimes that did not involve the president were not his business.
Actually Clinton did try to get Rid of Starr – the case went to SCOTUS.
I would note that SCALIA in one of his most famous dissents felt the IC was unconstitutional.
Regardless SCOTUS prevented Clinton from getting rid of Starr.
Hillary was subpoened to testify – she did not do so willingly.
Starr was appointed by and under the control of Congress – No one but Congress had the power to remove him.
The IC law and the SC law are completely different.
Part of what I am recommending is that the IC law be revived – because for all the IC law flaws the SC law is proving worse. Instead of having congress responsible and accountable for whatever the IC is authorized, we have a single person – Rosenstein, who is accountable to no one, effectively can not be fired, near certainly will lose his job the moment this is over – so he has ever reason to draw this out forever, and his himself heavily involved in highly questionable and probably criminal actions at the start of this.
No one disagrees that Mueller’s charge was board.
Please read the SC Law – Mueller’s charge was overly broad.
The SC Law is SOLELY about investigating Crimes where DOJ/FBI have a serious conflict.
Mueller’s charge does not identify any crime – despite the law clearly requiring that the SC be appointed to investigate a Crime.
Muellers charge is fundimentally a counter intelligence investigation.
There is not and can never be a conflict of interests in a counter-intelligence investigation.
Further there is a constitutionally required wall between counter-intelligence and criminal investigations in the FBI. No one is permitted to do both. Counter-intelligence has completely different and much more relaxed rules. Warrants as an example are ONLY needed when those being searched or surveiled as US persons.
You continuously fixate on irrelevant points that no one is arguing.
An investigation that uncovers another crime does nto ever just ignore that other crime.
If that other crime is germain to the main thrust of the investigation, then they seek authorization to pursue it. If not it is turned over to others to pursue.
Starr was assigned by congress additional areas of inquiry – most often because CONGRESS added those to his responsibilities, but occasionally because he uncovered something and asked congress for further authority.
The Papadoulis investigation is the only thing involving both the campaign and Russia (albeit “fake russians”). And it has no conflict and should have been returned to DOJ
There is no conflict Regarding Flynn and it has nothing to do with the campaign it should have been returned to DOJ.
The IRA investigation does nto involve the Trump campaign and has not conflict, further it is really a counter intelligence investigation. It should have been turned over to others.
There is no conflict Regarding Manefort/Gates and it has nothing to do with either the campaign, or Russia. it should be turned over to DOJ.
It appears that whatever Mueller seems to think there is with respect to Cohen, he has properly turned it over to DOJ where is it being handled by SDNYC.
While there are serious questions here – there is no crime and no justification for violating priviledge, atleast it is only marginally tainted by Mueller.
Read the SC law, you can not by memo create authority exceeding that authorized by the law.
Whitewater is a generic name for a series of investigation by Congressionally Appointed independent Council Ken Starr.
First- the IC was under and supervised by congress.
The probes of Clinton demonstrated alot of problems with the IC act and it was not removed.
What we are now finding is that the SC law is worse and even more prone to abuse.
With respect to Starr – he was authorized by congress to engage in specific investigations.
Either when he encountered or congress dictated a different topic of investigation, there was specific request to congress, a review of the basis and congressional authorization to persue a new area.
We have absolutely nothing like that with Mueller. We learn that he has chased off in a new direction when he indicts someone or raids someone.
At best he is secretly accountable to one man – Rosenstein, who is atleast a potential witness and arguably a potential target as he signed off on atleast one FISA warrant and that warrant appears to present a fraud to the court.
Inarguably Rosenstein has an interest in the outcome of the investigation now.
As I noted Starr was answerable to congress, and congress was answerable to voters.
Voters put Republicans back in control of the house 3 times during the Starr investigation.
Next Congressional investigations have more breadth than criminal investigations.
Next – actually yes, Starr closed investigations when he found nothing – in fact he also dropped investigations when he found guilt, as long as it was not the President. He viewed the role of the IC as investigating misconduct by the President – not the first lady or everyone near the president.
Starr has noted several times that there was plenty of evidence to convict Hillary in several of his investigations. He just did not think it was appropriate to indict the First lady.
The investigation regarding Lewinsky was to determine if Clinton had lied under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case.
That has been pretty firmly established as true. Clinton ultimately paid large fines, and surrendered his bar license as a consequence of lying.
It was the primary reason he was impeached.
Yes, I think the president lying under oath is a very big deal.
HOWEVER, I think that the SCOTUS decision allowing the Jones case to proceed while Clinton was president was WRONG.
AND I said that at the time.
Ron:
“In ‘real life,’ investigations are closed only when their original predication is disproved or when they’ve reached an investigative dead end and can go no further” — important read at:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/firing-rosenstein/557891/
I want this investigation to come to a conclusion. After 15+ months, there should be something that ties him to Russian collusion. Even the college shoe bribery investigation has produced charges against coaches that allegedly took bribes. If he has not found anything to do with collusion, how long should we pay him to look for other things that have no relationship to collusion.
Mueller was appointed to investigate collusion. The FBI investigates other crimes. Why are we paying Mueller to investigate sex payoffs and other issues when he cant find collusion? TO INSURE A DEMOCRAT HOUSE IN 2018!
I am less concerned about “concluding” this than establishing a justification for it.
Mueller needs to be assigned a clear specific crime to investigate, and he has to justify expanding the investigation by asserting that he has uncovered another clear specific crime, and seeking approval to proceed on that.
That approval needs to come from people who are not conflicted, and ideally expansions should be done publicly as with Starr.
There is a valid basis for investigating Russian actions during the election.
But that is counter intelligence investigation, and should be done by DOJ/FBI.
The purpose of that is not to identify crimes but to identify what Russia was up to and what if anything should be done.
As best as I can tell all the campaign related stuff has dead ended.
One of the reasons that real oversite needs to occur is because this can not be a “get Trump by whatever means necescary” investigation.
Those authorizing expanding the investigation need to be answerable to someone.
They are not.
Congress is answerable to the public.
Move this to congress.
Firing Rosenstein is not about “saving Trump”
It is about getting rid of somebody who has growing ethical problems and should have recused himself.
I think McCarthy has recently noted that Sessions far too broadly recused himself and should partially rescind that recusal.
Conversely given that the Steele Dossier is the foundation of this and that the conduct of the DOJ/FBI regarding the Steele Dossier is dubious and possibly criminal and that Rosenstein is strongly tied to the handling of the Steele Dossier, he has much more significant grounds to recuse than Sessions ever had.
Failure to recuse is a justification for termination
The recent raid on Cohen raises a number of questions.
Maybe we will get some answers soon, but it is hard to tell.
We do not have the warrant – so we do not know the crime alleged or what was searched for – or at best we have rumours.
There is lots of screathing about attroney client priviledge and Crime Fraud exceptions.
These questions need answered.
Knowing what Crime was alleged and what was being searched for would greatly help.
As batty as Cohen seems to be, there is no self evident crime in what is known publicly about his conduct.
The Daniels and enquirer stories are news, they are not crimes.
IF another non-crime is being chased – then this is entirely out of control.
Further it appears that Mueller is only tangentially involved – but there are rumors otherwise.
the SDNYC US attorney has recused himself because of a very attentuated connection to Cohen – Rosenstein should take note and remove himself from all of this.
We do not actually know that the SDNYC is seeking to breach attorney client privilege.
I am highly suspicious that they have not.
Regardless the normal “taint team” is not sufficient in this instance. A judge should be appointed to determine what seized material the SDNYC is provided from Cohen.
I would note that according to Polls Trump received a several point positive bump from this, and public opinion of the Mueller investigation has shifted negative by something like 14 points with a majority now questioning Mueller’s integrity.
I am surprised by this.
Congress was debating legislation to protect Mueller and Rosenstein from firing.
That is a mistake. They are not getting fired absent stronger evidence of misconduct than we have now.
Further though I did not read your atlantic article, firing either will not end this. It will make it take longer.
If Congress wishes to do something they should enact a new version of the IC act and appoint Mueller as IC. That eliminates the problem and moves him to were their will be meaningful supervision by people whose political interests are in getting this right.
Even if Democrats end up in control of the House in Nov.
More Proof The Stupid SOB Doesn’t Know What He’s Doing:
“President Trump has instructed top administration officials to explore re-entering the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact he pulled the U.S. out of last year.
Speaking after a trade meeting with Trump, Republican senators said the president told National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to look into re-joining the negotiations.”
Jay, my 1:34 comment was meant for your two postings.
So whats wrong with that? Didn’t like the original treaty, dropped out, now tells his staff, go back and see if we can negotiate something better that will help the country.
Have you never gone to a car dealer, had them give you one price, you say no, you leave, only to have them call and you meet again and reach a deal? Or were you the one that took the crappy deal to begin with?
No, Ron, I don’t think your car analogy works.
What changed in Trump’s dumb decision to walk away from TPP was the his equally dumb China tariff move, which blew up in his face with China’s counter threat on US farm products – reopening TPP is to assuage the anger coming at him from his farmer base after he told them they might have to bear some pain for the clumsy tariff move.
This fool doesn’t have a clue how to oversee the economy.
How does this demonstrate what you claim it does ?
Trump is historically famous for walking away from deals and returning to them later – when he can use them to strike and even better deal.
We do not actually know what happened – Frum is reporting hearsay. Sasse is capable of confirming what was said.
But what does it matter ?
I think Trump was wise to walk away from TPP.
Further Trump has been prone to negotiate bilateral rather than mulilatteral deals – and there are very good reasons that is a batter approach.
But is there some reason to whig out because Trump is now willing to talk about TPP again ?
Is there some reason you think he is just going to dig the same deal he railed about ?
Or do you think maybe he is going to negotiate a TPP that he likes better ?
You constantly fixate on labels rather than substance.
You do this with anything with “russia” in it too.
What is done matters, not what is said, or what it is called.
“Trump is historically famous for walking away from deals and returning to them later – when he can use them to strike and even better deal.”
Yeah, like his walk away from his NJ Casino deals, leaving investors and union workers to suffer the outcome of those bankruptcies. But you’re right, he did get a better deal – for himself.
He walked away from his NYC to DC Shuttle Airline business too, after defaulting on that loan,, which forced him to sell off his $29 million yacht in partial restitution.
And how did the Trump Travel business deals work out for him, Dave? And Trump Vodka? Did he walk away from those for better deals later? And what about that $25 million Trump U settlement payoff this week? Is he going to hold off on that for a better deal?
He’s a notorious bad fuck up investment for anyone involved with his business. The thief con artist does OK for himself, the participants get screwed. That’s what’s gonna happen with the tariff threats (which probably won’t be finalized) – The Trump family will be buying back depressed stocks at low prices, and profit from the bounce backs.
With respect to the assorted business deals you listed.
So What ?
Are you going to invest with Trump ? I am not.
Did you vote for him ? I did not.
Businesses fail – that is how life works. They fail more often than they succeed.
There is good reason to be less trusting of people who have failed before.
At the same time Trump has failed spectaculorly and succeeded spectacularly.
Those in business with him are supposed to do their due diligence.
Find me an instance were Trump created a business with the intention of causing it to fail and to profit from its bankruptcy – and I am interested – that is fraud.
But trying failing, doing the best you can in failure, and moving on is not a crime.
Overall, Trump started with a 35M silver spoon. He subseqnetly inhereted another 100M – but not until after he had turned the 35M into several 100M, and today he is worth about 4B according to Forbes.
Lots of spectacular failures – but a NET of 4B.
That is doing pretty good.
Trump’s businesses are not for the feint of heart. They are not for me. they are not for you.
As to Trump U, first you tell me during the election he is ripping people off.
Now you are telling me they are getting 25M from him.
You are telling me that he went bankrupt and had to sell his Yacht.
Yup – that is what happens when you go bankrupt.
“He’s a notorious bad fuck up investment for anyone involved with his business. The thief con artist does OK for himself, the participants get screwed. ”
Trump was very wealthy (and arrogant) in the early 80’s the first time I encountered him.
That was a long time ago.
Since then he has made good and bad deals and the sum of the good and the bad puts him 4B ahead.
Those who invest with him are not poor people, and they are not stupid people.
They know or should know what they are getting into.
Many of them get significantly richer.
Some of them lose there investment.
That is how high risk high reward investing works.
It is not conning someone to sell them on a risky investment.
It is self evident that if Trump did not succeed much more than he failed he would not be president.
First hand impression of Mueller’s professionalism and integrity… and persistence
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-i-learned-briefing-robert-mueller
What one man thinks is beside the point. The issue is “When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Bob Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian election interference”.
WHF has he found so far? Are you telling me that after 21 months they don’t have enough to hang Trump for Russian collusion? How long does it go on? Why do they need a SC to find 30+ instances where Manaford and Gates laundered money? Is that not what the FBI is for and if they believe Manaford had laundered millions, would they not have investigated? Is sex with a Hollywood bimbo a crime? Is paying them to be quiet a crime if no other crimes were committed, like Cosby’s rapes?
Give me something after 21 months of the FBI (July 2016) and later Mueller (May 2017) investigating this issue that has been found to indicate Russian Collusion. That is the issue. That is what they are being paid for. That is what they charged to find. Period!
Even the FBI did not use these tactics on Capone to finally lock him away. It was the Treasury department in a completely separate government investigation that got him for tax evasion. But it was the actual department doing it, not some special investigator that thought he was god and everyone bowed to his demands.
This is political, will not stop until the elections so the House flips and then impeachment begins. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Trump isn’t the only possible target of collusion with the Russians.
There has been lots of informed speculation that other members of the Trump team (his son in law for example) may be charged. Nor do we know if Flynn agreed to testify about election collusion for reduced charges of only lying.are you suggesting he doesn’t have authority to follow leads to other members of the Trump administration?
And of course Mueller HAS indicted 13 Russians for trolling social media to sow discord among the American electorate, and is investigating other Russians: charges could include violations of laws on conspiracy, election law and Computer Fraud.
.
You want him to forget about that too?
I thought you wanted Trump out of the presidency. You prefer Dunce Donnie over Pence?
“I thought you wanted Trump out of the presidency. You prefer Dunce Donnie over Pence?”
What I want is what is best for the country. What I dont want is this to be drawn out to the election so the democrats take control and then Mueller announces he is finished and although, as everyone knew before he started due to congressional investigations , the Russians did interfere with our election, but there is no evidence Trump was involved. Then the House spends the next 18 months in impeachment investigations to insure a left of Obama candidate is elected president.
That insures more PPACA’s, more government regulations, more unbalanced climate accords like Paris that put us at a disadvantage, while allowing China to grow its CO2, output even though they are the largest polluter and SCOTUS decisions that infringes on rights of the majority for excessive rights for the minorities (ie bakers refusing to decorate cakes for gays).
So we will see what happens. Something soon or something around the election.
“Informed speculation” – no just speculation.
We are 21 months in and there is NOTHING tying the Trump campaign to Russia.
Each of the few tiny leads as fizzled.
There are more and cleared connections between the Clinton’s and Russia than Trump or his family.
The speculation on Flynn is that he may be backing out of the plea deal because there was prosecutorial misconduct.
You can find some talking head somewhere that claims to have some source that speculates some nonsense.
There is a reason that in the real world we deal with facts, evidence, law, logic, reason – not rampant stupid speculation.
BTW McCarthy and York have done an excellent job regarding the assorted pleas.
DOJ guidelines REQUIRE a prosecutor – especially with a cooperating witness to plead to the highest charge they beleive they can prove. The “deal” is with regard to sentencing.
There are very very significant reasons for this. Among others that pleading down creates an expectation in others and radically dimminishes the impetus for cooperation.
In the real world it is very hard for a prosecutor to successfully re-instate and prosecute more significant charges after a plea deal.
Among other reasons because there are massive fifth amendment and double jeophardy problems.
If as an example Flynn is “cooperating” and has provided Mueller with additional evidence of crimes that Flynn committed – then Mueller will not be able to use that evidence and probably can no longer prosecute that crime.
Rather than shows of strength. Muellers significant reduction in plea agreements show the weakness in his case and his desire to get a notch – any notch on his belt.
You can continue to dream that there is massive cooperation with Mueller – that of course requires that these people actually have something to tell.
You fail to grasp that your entire – Mueller has stuff we do not know presupposes that a crime was actually committed and that the evidence just has not been uncovered.
What is increasingly evident to most, is that there is no evidence because there never was a crime.
Trump Jr. would not have met Natalia if there was already a back channel to Russia.
The facts that we actually know are NOT consistent with Trump/Russia collusion.
Most people are starting to grasp that.
Contra Mueller “Trolling social media” is not a crime – not even if you are russian.
Nor is “sowing discord among the american electorate” – left wing nuts do that all the time.
There is no standalone “conspiracy” crime.
Conspiracy is ALWAYS conspircy to commit a different crime.
Just as money laundering is ALWAYS concealing the source of the proceeds of another crime.
Most of what you are hoping for is impossible.
One of the things Brinley – one of the people who designed the backend of the NSA surveilance system noted was that NSA has all the data necescary to prove – if they are provable all the claims the left is making.
The NSA has atleast the metadata on Anyone in this country – not just the trump campaign communicating with Russians in anyway.
Normally the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
While at the NSA Brinley analysed the NSA captured data on 9/11 AFTER the attacks occured,
and found plenty of evidence of the entire conspiracy – not only that bur numerous other failed efforts that were part of the same plan – all that within 2 months of 9/11.
He was forced into retirement because of that and his work burried. Because it made NSA look incompetent.
Regardless, he notes that if Trump conspired with Russia, the NSA can conclusively prove it.
Despite Brennan’s musing, that proof has never materialize – because it does nto exist.
Ron: “as everyone knew before he started due to congressional investigations , the Russians did interfere with our election, but there is no evidence Trump was involved. Then the House spends the next 18 months in impeachment investigation…”
But other clear evidence that he deserves to be impeached.
Does he resign? Does Pense pardon him? Who runs for Republican Prez after that? Do we get a reasonable candidate from either party?
“But other clear evidence that he deserves to be impeached.”
Only to those on the left.
As this procedes what I see is more and more evidence that the FBI. DOJ, NSA, CIA, ….
All need house cleaned.
That a significant number of people at the top of government for years need jailed.
And that Obama probably should have been impeached.
I do not like Trump. But I see no reason to impeach him.
I do not think dems will retake the house,
but if they do, I will bet you they do not impeach.
And No I do not want president Pence – not at all.
“Do we get a reasonable candidate from either party?”
Vote.
We got the candidates people voted for.
1 No
2. No
3. Probably a far right conservative that will promote controlling individual’s social issue personal decisions.
4. April 1 has passed. Anyone who believes that is a fool.
Thanks, Jay. Good article about a good guy
The quibbillers will now expend 10000 words knocking him. They like their heroes crooked and loud.
Mueller has been deeply involved in almost every botched FBI investigation since the early 80’s.
That is your idea of a good guy ?
At the very time the author of the NYT peice was briefing Mueller, Mueller was (mis) leading the post 9/11 anthrax investigation. The FBI hounded TWO different INNOCENT americans for years – one to suicide.
The NAS investigation – which Mueller personally burried, found that the FBI botch the science on the Anthrax erroneously concluding it came from Fort Dietrich when it is near certain the Antrax letters were an Al Qeda operation.
Nor is this the only botched Mueller investigation.
The FBI has been sued and lost 10’s of millions in judgements for investigations run by Mueller.
The Richard Jewel cockup was Mueller,
The Whitey Bulgar coverup was Mueller.
Many of these also involve Comey.
The Bulgar coverup involved Weinstein.
It is now suspected that the FBI (Mueller) was actually protecting Bulgar – despite listing him on the most wanted list for decades.
This is your idea of a good and competent man ?
What passes for integrity to those on the left is very troubling.
By these standards, Trump should be Pope.
🖕🖕🖕
Mortem Tyranni
So you want Mueller dead ?
Your problem: you’re blind to who is good and who is bad.
You need a seeing eye dog, because history is about to crash down on your head.
“Your problem: you’re blind to who is good and who is bad.
You need a seeing eye dog, because history is about to crash down on your head.”
You make my point.
It is irrelevant who you or I think is good,
As keeps getting noted government investigates crimes – ACTS, not people.
You are a criminal and subject to government sanctions because you have commited a violent ACT, It is irrelevant whether you are a “good person”
You can make choices about who is good or bad with your vote.
You may not use force to sanction people because you think they are “bad”.
There is plenty of evidence that purportedly “bad people” are quite good for the world – given they are properly constrained.
Government constrains their tendency to violence.
There is massive economic evidence that so long as you are obligated to abide by the coire of the law – constrained from violence, obligated to keep agreements and required to make whole any you harm that you will ultimately be unable to do bad things – and that efforts to do so will result in good rather than harm.
I think Trump is a bad person.
I also think that Comey and Mueller are different kinds of bad person. I think McCabe is a third kind of bad person.
I think Manafort is a bad person.
I think that Flynn is likely a good person.
But those assessments do not matter in the context of law and government.
What does matter is what they have done.
It is self evident that the investigation of Trump was criminally and politically corrupt.
Those involved are criminals – whether they are good people or not.
“It is self evident that the investigation of Trump was criminally and politically corrupt.”
Your Haloperidol dosage out of whack again?
If the government receives and allegation of criminal conduct, I expect it to investigate.
But that investigation is severely constitutionally limited – until law enforcement establishes that there is probable cause that a specific crime has been committed AND is barred from searches and seizures until law enforcement is prepare to SWEAR that such probable cause exists.
I believe I noted that an informant that is right 70% of the time is NOT for the purposes of a warrant reliable.
Nor is information that is true only in the broadest sense – as an example there as specific allegations against Carter Page in the Steele Dossier. As specific allegations each is false.
The fact that Carter page did travel to Russia and did meet a Russian does not make specific claims that are wrong credible as general claims.
Further general claims are NOT sufficient for a warrant.
All of the above is pretty standard constitutional law.
The claims in the Steele Dossier have not to this date been verified – regardless of the claims of some on the left otherwise. Further Comey specifically testified in May 2017 that the Steele Dossier was salacious and unverified – at the time of his testimony it was the core to at least 3 and possibly significantly more FISA warrants against Carter Page – and apparently now we find against Manafort.
Subsequently McCabe has testified that without the Steele Dossier their would have been no warrants. That is also the fining of the Nunes memo.
Accepting that Comey did not lie to the Senate, that McCabe did not lie to the Senate and House, the ONLY alternative is that everyone who SWORE out the FISA Warrants was knowingly swearing falsely.
That is a criminal abuse of power.
I would remind you that Mueller is prosecuting Zander, Papadoulis, and Flynn for UNSWORN mis-statements to FBI investigators
SWEARING that the information in a Warrant is verified and credible when you know or should know and are required to know that you are wrong is a significantly more serious crime.
It is quite literally what Nixon tried to do – Use the IRS and FBI against political enemies.
You can not lock that, but it is still true – self evident.
Every fact above is true – and most come from the sworn testimony of the people that SWORE the FISA Warrant.
In otherwords they not I have implicated themselves –
Many of the claims in the Steele Dossier have been verified. Why do you keep distorting the truth?
The dossier claimed Carter Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft. Page vehemently denied it but in November the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s congressional testimony, revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin’s subordinate.
The dossier said the Russians targeted educated and swing voters with fake news to cultivate anger againstHillary Clinton, also substantiated by congressional investigations into Russia’s misinformation campaigns during the election.
Now this! Steele’s Dossier said Trump’s lawyer Cohen worked as an intermediary between Trump and Russia, and specifically that he traveled to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin associates. Cohen denied it with passport photos to show he had never traveled to meet with Russian officials – Trump defenders use this as proof the Dossier is nonsense. But today the news media is reporting this:
“Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that Donald Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, around the time a British spy says Cohen met with a Kremlin official there to discuss Russian interference in the U.S. election, sources have told McClatchy. Cohen, pictured on April 11, 2018, has vehemently denied ever visiting Prague.” (Mary Altaffer AP)
Even the salacious pee pee charge (which Steele noted as unlikely) now seems more probable, after the Stormy SpankMe revelation, and denial by Trump he wasn’t at the hotel that night (also proved a false denial from testimony by his bodyguards).
What’s going to convince you? Seized Cohen tapes of Trump describing the urine dripping prostitutes? Probably not – you’ll dismiss it as more locker talk.
You are absolutely correct that Page has denied every meeting from the Steele Dossier.
He has done so under oath – repeatedly.
Mueller has indicted and prosecuted people for minor errors of timing in interviews with the FBI.
Why do you beleive that evidence exists that Page lied under oath and yet Mueller is completely ignoring it ?
No the Daniels story does nto confirm the dossier pee story – if anything it refutes it
If Trump is into spanking that is a strong indicator he is NOT unit uralognia.
What will convince me is actual evidence – not rumours, unnamed sources.
I would not the IG report on McCabe was just release.
There we have absolute proof of lying under oath.
Further McCabe is no publicly accusing Comey of lying.
I take no prescription medication of any kind.
I have had friends or people I helped that were actual psychotics. I am not, nor even close.
Yes, I know you are joking – but it is a stupid joke that reflects badly on you.
Further as noted before – what is true, is true, regardles of whether uttered by Hitler or Mao, or a psychotic or ….
Focus on the facts and logic, not your poor skills at amateur over the internet psychiatry.
You should consider trying Haloperidol. It’s helpful for treating a symptom you need to control. Involuntary vocalization.
You should try checking your facts before posting.
You are aware that Mueller chased the Anthrax investigation down a rabit hole at precisely the time frame this person is saying how much integrity and attention to detail Mueller was paying.
It was painfully obvious to many of us that the FBI almost certainly had the wrong person fairly early on. There were too many details that did not fit.
But Mueller’s (and Comey) FBI relentlessly hounded two different innocent men and as I recall drove one to suicide. The NAS actually investigated the FBI investigation and found that it was deeply flawed.
Further Both Mueller and Comey were involved in the disasterous hounding of Richard Jewell, who not only turned out to be innocent but actually a hero.
Mueller was heavily involved in the post 9/11 illegal roundup and detention (and in some cases torture) of US muslims
There are court findings that Mueller was personally involved in the Bush Torture operation
Mueller was involved in the Whitey Bulgar Mob Boss case from very early in his career with the FBI. Bulgar was only aprehened just as Mueller was leaving the FBI despite being one of the most wanted fugatives in the US for over a decade.
After leaving Boston Mueller botched the Hell’s Angel’s case in San Francisco – twice.
There are allegations that the FBI and specifically Mueller were secretly protecting Bulger – who died before spilling his guts.
BTW Andrew Weisman is tied to some of this.
Mueller was director during the infamous FBI frameup of Ted Stevens – where despite lying under oath, fabricating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence resulted in no negative consequences for anyone in the FBI – Except Agent Chad Joy the one who came forward to report the misconduct.
“Since then he has made good and bad deals and the sum of the good and the bad puts him 4B ahead.“
Numerous economists have calculated that he would have more than that amount if he simply invested his original inheritance in index funds.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
You do not seem to grasp that an economist and say an MBA are radically different fields.
Like the difference between an astronomer and a structural engineer.
Economists examine the performance of systems. They do not examine the performance of individuals or companies.
You can BTW perform the same analysis of most anyone wealthy.
Another factor you completely miss is that
The stock market rises BECAUSE people engage in risky productive behavior.
Absent the Trump’s Gates, Oprah’s Buffet’s etc – the stock market does not go up.
Nah, if he invested in index funds, he would not have had all the tax evasion strategies, business “expenses”, depreciation, like property exchanges, etc., that RE speculation affords. Especially good for a bald faced conniver, with no moral ethics. Plus he got to have fun. You can’t get that with an index fund.
Face it, the tax code favors “wise” guys and their lawyers and RE is the best.
Well, except when you can sell 87 million people’s private info. And that is just FB.
Google probably knows when I had my last b—- movement and sold (ah, the small print allows it) the info to the toilet paper advertisers.
😏👍
Pass a flat tax with ZERO deductions.
I tire of this garbage.
No one gets rich from tax evasion – you have to make wealth to commit tax evasion.
It is possible for a very small portion of people to become rich by “cheating”
But only a very small portion.
Because wealth is created, and if no one is creating wealth there is nothing to steal.
Standard of living rises because we produce more value.
You can not make standard of living rise by cheating. or re-arranging.
The tax code can play favorites all you want – that will not increase the actual wealth or standard of living of the country.
And no one can get rich gaming the tax code.
With respect to FB – you gave them your info. You agreed to let them sell it.
FB knows nothing about you that you did not tell them.
I would further note that neither CA nor anyone else is interested in your information UNLESS you are likely to care about something they offer.
I am not aware of any claim by any of the 10’s of millions of people that as a result of FB information sales they were FORCED to vote for Obama or Trump.
Do you think that Obama gathered up information on millions of Romney voters ?
The Obama people claimed that as a result of their Social Media savy they felt confident they had personal information on every single person who voted for Obama.
CA gathered information of people likely to vote for Trump.
None of the people after personal data care about the data of people who will not buy from them.
They go to a great deal of effort to try to NOT pay for useless infromation.
No one is buying all the FB data on everyone.
You are free to quit using FB or google – I no longer use Google, and I have never used FB as more than a user ID validation system for other blogs.
I “am free to quit FB”. Well you pious putz, I never used them at all.
“I “am free to quit FB”. Well you pious putz, I never used them at all.”
Good for you.
BTW make up your mind – I can not be both arrogant and pious.
Given that you do not use FB, can I presume that you are not going to demand that government step in and impose your will on existing FB users ?
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/984644265853665281?s=21
An interesting and good explanation of how we got Trump/
“Because if Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney and people like this are the worst politicians, then you deserve Trump.”
The fact is you are not rational.
You claim to want Pence right now – Bunk!
If Pence or Bush, or Rubio, or Paul, or …. had been elected – you would still be calling them the worst humans who ever walked the face of the earth.
Your specific words would be different.
When you paint everyone as an extremists no one is – except you.
There is much media discusson of this.
It is very hard to tell if it is fake news or real.
Nothing through normal channels suggests that a Libby pardon is in the offing.
But Trump does not always act through normal channels.
Personally, I think that Trump should Pardon Libby.
There is little to distinguish Libby from Flynn.
Libby made an inaccurate remark to the FBI.
Libby had nothing to do with what was being investigated.
The sole purpose of prosecuting Libby was to leverage him to turn on Chenney.
Despite the fact that Chenney was not the “leak”, and the fact that the leak was not a crime
Plame was no longer an NOC – i.e. her PAST as an agent was not known. but in the present she was PUBLICLY CIA – she was never going NOC again. The law was not actually violated.
Stories on Sinclair result in a very unusual apologize to Sinclair
https://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethics/2016/12/19/re-sinclairs-deal-with-campaigns/
This is an excellent Ken White Podcast on the first amendment.
It follows a specific case – Stevens vs. the US – a recent free speach landmark case.
I would note several things:
First there is significant discussion about how laws are interpreted – narrowly or broadly and why the broad interpretations that the left seeks regarding Trump all the time are both nonsense and horribly dangerous.
The second is that in Steven’s SCOTUS threw down the Gauntlet on speach.
It openly said – we have a limited number of traditionally recognized exceptions to the near absolute right of free speach and we are NOT going to recognize more.
Campaign laws that impact speach are NOT among those recognized exceptions.
Even with precedent it hard to predict what SCOTUS will do – in issues involving Children and sex SCOTUS has often completely abandoned rock solid principles in other matters.
There is no traditional exception to the first amendment that would cover campaign finance laws.
It is entirely possible that SCOTUS will rule “Argh! Russia!” as it has with child sex cases.
But if it consistently followed its own first amendment precedent, laws that would in effect bar the speach of russians on Facebook in a political campaign would be unconstitutional – for innuerable reasons.
The US does not have global jurisdiction.
While the US government is not obligated to defend the rights of others elsewhere in the world, most rights are NOT restricted to citizens. Free speach is a natural right – even Russians have it.
Attempting to bar the speach of Russians even if legitimate can not avoid barring speach that is legitimate. As an example – the annonymous speach of americans is protected by the first amendment. It is not possible to distinguish between anonymous russians and anonymous americans without infringing on annymous speach.
Though I do not think “russian influence” was significant in this election,
it is still not something I like.
But rights are the constraint against the govenrment and the people from criminalizing things merely because they do not like them.
This is an incredibly important point and goes well beyond free speach.
Jay’s arguments – an that of the left, and the efforts to broadly apply the law all fall under
“I do not like this conduct, and therefore it must be illegal”
That is false. Tolerance – that thing the left claims to value, means accepting that people will do and say things you do not like, and much of the time there is nothing that you can do, beyond speak out.
I am “picking” on Jay – but that is primarily because at the moment his expression here epitomizes exactly what I am talking about. He is by far not the greatest offender, and though at the moment the left is, this problem is not unique to the left.
My point is our law, our government can not be about what we like and do not like.
Government must be far more constrained.
https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/04/crush/
Coincidentally I listened to that podcast this morning.
Ken White is brilliant and reasonable— and succinct ..
Too bad you’re so much his opposite.
There is nothing White says I would disagree with.
I would further note there is nothing in White’s podcast that is at odds with any of the things I have said that you disagree with.
Whatever differences you might have between White and I regarding the issues of this podcast are of style rather than substance.
As noted before Russian FB and Twitter posts are NOT among the existing exceptions to First amendment strict scrutiny.
Anything is possible should a case actually come before SCOTUS – which is actually unlikely,
as I noted SCOTUS looses all sense of principles whenever kids and sex are involved.
Maybe they would back away from principles if Russians were involved.
But if we assume they would not – laws barring “Russian influence” in our elections would be/are unconstitutional – so long as “influence” means speach or the necescities of speach.
But I would further call your attention to Whites long discussion on statutory interpretation.
That applies whether we are talking about the first amendment, obstruction of justice, money laundering, Federal election laws, …..
Law is interpreted NARROWLY. If a law captures everything from erotic animal abuse fetishes to hunting videos or meat processing videos – then the law is overly broad and unconstitutional
Just about every time someone on the left says – Trump broke some criminal law, that claim requires the very same lidicrously broad understanding of the law as the stevens case.
If the law actually is that broad – it is unconstitutional, and if it is not – then it does nto criminalize Trump’s conduct.
I would further point out that the broad applications of assorted laws used to try to claim Trump is a criminal ALWAYS also capture the conduct of Clinton or Obama.
There are actual crimes Clinton committed, and some actions of Obama that require significantly greater scrutiny.
That said Clinton’s procurement of the Steele Dossier was not a crime.
Nor were the similar smaller, and failed efforts of Trump.
I am glad you like White.
My guess is that his credibility with you is helped because he is often Critical of Trump.
So am I though you never notice.
White is one of the better legal bloggers on First Amendment issues.
I was unfamiliar with Stevens. It is a great case.
Frankly the – we are not going to keep expanding government exceptions to rights, is a position that SCOTUS should have taken more broadly possibly a century ago
ALL Rights should be subject to strict scrutiny – with at most a small number of narrowly carved out exceptions.
The Trump Kakistocracy. Priceless!
“Your kakistocracy is collapsing after its lamentable journey. As the greatest Nation history has known, we have the opportunity to emerge from this nightmare stronger & more committed to ensuring a better life for all Americans, including those you have so tragically deceived.”
John O. Brennan
You do know that Brennan and particularly this post has become a twitter meme of the right ?
Pretty much everyone is using it to poke fun at the left and Brennan .
More Dossier Confirmation…
“Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that Donald Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, around the time a British spy says Cohen met with a Kremlin official there to discuss Russian interference in the U.S. election, sources have told McClatchy. Cohen, pictured on April 11, 2018, has vehemently denied ever visiting Prague.” AP
This appears to be promising. Guess we will get more around Feb 2019.
When someone has a named source with actual evidence that would prove more interesting.
This story is a retread.
As is Jay’s Carter Page garbage.
Carter Page has done everything possible to paint a gigantic bullseye on his back if he is lying. He is even suing the media for defamation for printing unconfirmed stories.
Until you see Mueller actually indict Page, you should presume anything that you hear of him that conflicts with his own testimony is false.
I would note Page is a Naval Acadamy Grad – they take the honor code very seriously.
Alot is made of Page’s 2013 contacts with Russians.
They approached him. He notified the FBI and worked with the FBI to investigate the Russians.
Anything is possible, but the likelyhood of Carter Page working as a russian spy is incredibly low.
I would further note, the people involved in this – Page, Cohen. Manafort, Trump,
Are not “professional spies” – they would have to be incredibly lucky to have done what the Steele Dossier claims while leaving no trace.
Jay has been watching too much TV, ordinary people even the wealthy (possibly especially the wealthy) do not have and can not easily get the stuff needed to travel without leaving a trace.
International travel is very carefully monitored – through records are kept
And finally ad Brinley formerly of NSA noted – the NSA has the data on exactly where all these people were, who they called, who they emailed.
If the proof of the Steele dossier actually existed – the FBI had it long before Mueller was appointed.
Now why would I say “This appears to be promising. Guess we will get more around Feb 2019.” Because , like you say, there is nothing there or as Jay believes , Trump will be impeached. Whatever the outcome, it will be delayed well past the elections and promises to benefit the democrats so Pelosi can begin impeachment for ” I dont like Trump”.
Several legal scholars – but particularly Derschowitz have made the point that once the prosecutor targets the person rather then the crime – the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
A lot of legal scholars are making a big deal of this SDNYC thing.
But the argument is circular – first that the SDNYC USADA would not have done this but for a serious crime.
Jay cites McCarthy, who pretty clearly says technical violations of campaign finances laws would NOT justify a breach of Attorney Client privilege.
But there is some fairly strong evidence that this is exactly that – a claim that payments ot these women constitute a campaign contribution.
The other argument advanced by the left AND others, is that once the prosecutor has access to Cohen’s records he will be able to run wild and must be able to find something.
But that is NOT the law, and the SDNYC USADA is claiming that their search will guarantee that the actual investigators see nothing that is outside the scope of the warrant.
i.e. If Cohen confesses to murder in some email, but the search is for monies going to Daniels that the SDNYC USADA will never see the confession to murder.
I would be shocked if Cohen does not get charged with something.
I would also note that though the left and some here try to deflect on “whataboutism”.
Most of the comparisons I make are to note that something is NOT a crime.
But the left is playing with fire.
Lets says that somehow they manage to get enough on Trump to impeach him.
But whatever they come up with is less significant that Clinton’s misshandling of classified emails.
What the right is going to see is that if you are on the left – the DOJ/FBI will break the rules and bend over backward to get you off.
But if you are on the right, they break the rules and bend over backward to find that you did something small wrong.
That is a VERY DANGEROUS conclusion to have nearly half the country reach.
That is a conclusion that our government can not be trusted.
That is essentially the same conclusion our founders reached that resulted in the american revolution.
What you have as an anonymous source saying this. Thus far those leaks have mostly been wrong.
Mueller is NOT saying this, someone “leaking” to the press is.
If you follow further – not only is there no known evidence that Cohen went to Praugue which he vehmently denies, but no know evidence that the Person he purportedly met did either.
There are no visa’s, no passport stamps, none of them are registered on commercial flights, none of them have chartered private flights, in fact there are no private flights that correspond.
Nor is this a new story – some democratic staffers associated with the HPSCI investigation leaked this long ago.
Belief is not proof. Cohen has been forthright about his trips to Europe – they are all documented. Flights, passports, the works.
Expect this to die – just like all the other Louise Mensch crap.
I have some grassy knoll stories for you too.
I finally found the McClatchy Story.
That story is not particularly clear, places the trip in late august or Septemper 2016, which means it can not have anything to do with the central thesis – that Trump conspired with Russia regarding the DNC emails, as that occured BEFORE this alleged meeting.
In fact almost everything alleged in the Steele Dossier took place AFTER the DNC email leak.
More recently we have found that Democrats have raised 50M to continue developing the Steele Dossier – it did not stink enough first time arround.
The Mueller has proof that Cohen was in Prauge – is Steele II Dossier Material. i.e. Fusion GPS repackaged much the same garbage as before, delivered it to Mueller and then leaked that Mueller had it to the media – to make sure the story played.
Sending garbage to Mueller – means nothing.
I would note that much of the Mueller garbage has gone this way.
While I am not at all a fan of Mueller,
at the same time many many of the so called Mueller leaks have been fizzles – never living up to their billing.
This is likely because Simpson, Fusion GPS and th Democratic party aparatus are STILL trying to feed this garbage to Mueller.
We have a serious problem when one political party is using the Justice department to investigate its opponents. Particularly when it is feeding them garbage.
If it turned out to be true, that Trump did indeed watch prostitutes urinating, would that qualify for removal from office?
You are free to presume whatever you want, I don’t care what you assume.
I don’t think Trump wanted to witness this alleged activity, I think he is too prissy. And if he did, so what, only the chambermaid was harmed by the extra work needed cleaning up. I also see no harm in him asking Comey to look into the matter.
Come on guys, we need a criminal act not salacious stuff fit for the The Enquirer.
Here’s what appears to be criminal acts under investigation … if McCarthy saysTrump should worry about it, where is Tourette Dave’s response?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/michael-cohen-investigation-serious-peril-for-trump/
Give McCarthy time, he has yet to figure out that in all of what he has described as having possibly happened – there is no crime.
It is not a crime to buy and bury a story – it rarely works very well, but the Clinton’s did it in 1992.
It does not matter whether Cohen acted alone, or whether he worked with Trump.
A conspiracy to do something legal is still legal.
The closest thing to a “crime” is the alleged threat of implied harm to Daniels daughter.
We do not know that actually occurred, we do not know who did it if it did.
We do not know that what is claimed to have been said is what was actually said – and the difference between protected speach and criminal threat depends heavily on the precise words used.
All the rest is pointless.
At the start McCarthy notes – that if the prosecutor is trying to stretch some claims of campaign finance violations into a crime, the problem lies with the prosecutor.
We do not as of yet know exactly what crime was alleged.
There is a battle of Briefs with Cohen and the SDNYC over this, so clues leak out – the actual crime is redacted unfortunately.
But the indications are that the allegation is with respect to Cohen alone – not Trump or clients.
I do not actually trust the prosecutors to NOT do something improper. Not because they are prosecuting Trump, but unlike MCarthy I do not have inherently high regard for the ethics and integrity of prosecutors and law enforcement.
That said if SDNYC is actually following the procedures outlined in their response to Cohen’s demand that all seized materials be turned over to his attorney or to a specially appointed master, then it looks strongly like they are after Cohen and only Cohen, and they are seeking to protect Priviledge. There is very little – if anything in their response about Crime Fraud exceptions.
I have no memorized everything regarding this particular incident.
I beleive that Trump actually was in Moscow at the time.
I beleive that the ACTUAL story – one that has ACTUALLY been confirmed, is that some prominent Russian made an offer of a room and prostitutes to one of Trump’s security people and they declined. Trump was not told the offer, and never went to that hotel.
“If it turned out to be true, that Trump did indeed watch prostitutes urinating, would that qualify for removal from office?”
Congress can impeach for any reason they please.
It would not however significantly effect my view of Trump.
Though it probably would effect that of others.
Urolagnia is a fetish, that is all.
Just as erotic spankings,.
Cross Dressing,
It would likely undercut his support on the right.
But if the left were not hypocritical out the wahzoo it would increase his support amoung them.
Or do you think that some fetish’s are dissgusting and others are not ?
Of course I think some fetishes are more disgusting than others.
Don’t you?
Or do you equate rubbing peanut butter all over your body with rubbing feces all over it?
I am neither into feces or peanut butter.
It is my understanding that those who are into feces are not into peanut butter.
If Trump is into spanking, he is not likely into peeing.
Contra your argument, Daniels makes it LESS likely that the pee story is true
It doesn’t make it less likely that he peed on someone… a power move consistent with groping
“It doesn’t make it less likely that he peed on someone… a power move consistent with groping”
Because you are an expert on fetishes ?
Of those who would be catogorized as into kink – itself only a small portion of people.
Spanking is by far the most common kink – reported by 93% of those into kink.
While “urine play” is one of the least frequent kinks.
Being spanked is a submissive act.
It is common for powerful men to be into submissive sexual roles.
It is unlikely that Trump is a “switch”.
Regardless my point is that the Daniels references to spanking would either not correlate at all or negatively correlate to the water sports described.
Daniels is to my knowledge the only credible report of Trump being into Kink at all.
Trump’s alpha male sexuality is NOT the same as dominance in BDSM, and actually inconsistent with Daniels story of spanking him.
The Syria bombings..
Even Trumpster ass smooches are giving him the raspberry.
But silence from Dave, and Ron – both advocates for restricting presidential authority of this kind.
I posted something on Syria on the 10th – some time ago.
I do not have the answers.
I do not think Trump’s actions were justified – even if Assad used WMD’s on his own people.
But that is not likely to be a commonly held view.
Further though I still think we should not have acted,
I completely understand those who do.
More significantly there is some doubt about what actually happened,
There is doubt about the Chemical attack a year ago.
There is apparently now doubt about the poisoning attack on the Russian in the UK.
As I read what is purportedly known – I can not tell what the truth is.
My weighing of the evidence suggests that it is more likely that the Russians were responsible for the poisoning, that Assad did use WMD’s.
But not so convinced that I would kill people over it.
And I am well aware our government has gotten things like this wrong – many many times.
Watching people speak, this issue does not divide along partisan
I am watching D’s simultaneously accusing Trump of Wagging the Dog and of not striking hard enough or soon enough.
I would note that if you think Putin has something on Trump – it was self evident from Trump’s announcement, that he does not think so or does not care.
Trump specifically identified Russia and Iran as responsible for this, repeatedly.
I do not know what the truth is.
But I do know this does not fit with the left meme’s.
I beleive that the constitution authorizes the President to take actions such as this – but requires a finding that the US national security is threatened.
In this instance I do not beleive that was the case.
That said while I can criticise Trump for this, I can his actions more offensive than every president since Reagan.
I already commented on a couple other sights. Maybe also rosecoloredglasses.com
But for you, here are my thoughts. Trump announces days before the missiles are coming. Assad moves anything of importance. Missiles launched and hit noting of significance, although the DOD will say it was effective. NOW WHAT? Just because Trump “clintonized” Syria by lobbing a few missiles, what good did it do? Did no good year ago in Afghanistan or a few months ago in Syria.
Time to let the moderate middle eastern countries worry with this crap. Seal the borders to southern European countries and force refugees into Saudia Arabia and others. Maybe the they will stop expecting the USA to bail their asses out if a jamb.
I do not think forewarning Assad matter’s much
Any knowledge we have of Assad’s weapons is likely by Drone of satellite survailance.
If Assad moved something – we followed.
The question is whether we actually know where Assads WMD’s are.
The other question is whether the use of WMD’s was really Assad.
I think it is likely – but that is not good enough for me.
I would recommend listening to Trump’s announcement of the attack.
It was pretty good. If I beleived for certain the WMD use was Assad’s I would have fully supported him.
Trump said several other things:
The US is not the policeman of the world.
The other mideastern nations need to step up their role,
We are not going into Syria like Lebanon, Afghanistan, ….
We did not act unilaterally.
He squarely Blamed Putin for NOT securing the Syrian WMD’s as he had promised.
He made it clear that Putin/Russia was a significant part of the problem, not the solution and their conduct would not be accepted.
He also went after Iran – but that was to be expected.
I think you will find neo-cons whether D or R are supporting this.
While noninterventionists are opposed.
Opposed
Coulter
Ingrahm
Carlson
Supporters
Warren
Durbin
Warner
Schumer
Pelosi
Trump WAS at that hotel that night Dave. Arrival and departure times have been confirmed.
What I had in mind for impeachment reasoning would be Trump’s blatant lying about witnessing the ‘golden shower.’ with visual evidence to the contrary blaring after a week of massive MSM blitz split screen images of Trump’s denials alongside disgusting proof of his lying, don’t you think that would signal the end of his support in Congress and large numbers of his faithful enablers would then abandon him?
If that evidence surfaces, are you saying you wouldn’t be demanding his removal from office?
No Trump was in A hotel that night.
20 years ago I would say that if the purported “pee tape” was real and surfaced, Trump would resign of be impeached and removed.
Post Clinton ? That is not likely sufficient.
Thus far Trump has not lied under oath.
Clinton lied under oath.
All this is of course in the world of unicorns.
Because the odds of the event happening are near zero.
More left wing nut wishful thinking.
I would go further and say that if Trump was into this peeing stuff – there would be LOTS of stories.
All the stories about Trump are pretty consistent that he is a pretty standard oversexed alpha male.
Daniels is the only story I am aware of where he demonstrated any fetish.
People do not suddenly develop one time only fetishes.
A few days ago a Law School Professor Josh Blackman was invited to CUNY Law School to speak at a Federalist Society sponsored event on the topic of Free Speech Law and the first amendment. He was shouted down by protestors, and called many things including racist and nazi.
This was at a LAW SCHOOL.
This is what is wrong with the left today.
Blackman BTW is a libertarian.
One of the protestors said that if someone is doing something that does not harm others they should be free to do so – and was shocked when Blackman said – Absolutely, I agree. Now lets work together to change the law to match that.
We agree this was a stupid attempt to stifle speech.
But the disrupters (few in number) were FAR left.
The majority of well behaved ‘lefties’ there didn’t disrupt anyone but the disrupters, who were booed and given the middle finger.
Apparently you watched different video. There were about 200 protesters, about 30 of which went into the classroom Blackman spoke in. after about 15 minutes of disruption someone for the university directed that protesters to stop disrupting or leave – most left.
Approximately 15 people remained – about half were protesters, who were subsequently respectful – asking questions respectfully.
The total CUNY law school student body is less than 400
Law School Students BTW tend to be left of center, but significantly right of the rest of college students.
These students were not “far left”. They were pretty typical of college students.
Blackman is actually a first amendment law expert – a very appropriate guest speaker for a law school. and someone you would expect that any serious law school student would wish to hear.
After normal order was restored – though most of the questions of Blackman were pretty stupid – particularly from students at a law school, Blackman answered them politely even enthusiastically. I would have been quite annoyed if I had been asked to speak on Significant current issues of first amendment law, and had to waste alot of time addressing very basic general law questions that should have been covered in any 1L course.
The Facebook Hearings – as seen by Reason
“Now conservatives have become civil libertarians, and liberals have become strong supporters of law enforcement, the Justice Department and the FBI,”
Allan Deschowitz.
Derschowitz id WRONG – conservatives and progressives fall over themselves to see who can do more damage to our liberties.
https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/14/the-deep-state-liars-of-the-resistance
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/13/trump-announces-unprecedented-support-fo
“Gardner had been using senatorial privilege to place holds on various administration nominees until he received assurances that the Trump administration would work to allow the untroubled legalization of pot in states that decide to do so.”
This situation will be used by many to say how enlightened those that support this are. I think it show how F’ed up this government is. One senator has to block legislative appointment s that have a negative impact on everyone even though the majority of states have legalized or relaxed marijuana laws.
Just another example of congress abdicating their responsibilities. The president should not be making decisions not to enforce federal law, be it immigration or drugs. Congress needs to de-schedule marijuana and do their jobs.
Too many investigations, to little actions they were sent to DC to do.
The authority to deschedule drugs has apparently been granted the executive – so Trump can do this unilaterally.
However I would absolutely support getting the Federal government mostly out of the drug enforcement business.
My sugestion is let the Federal government have whatever drug laws it pleases, BUT they apply SOLELY to drugs crossing borders.
i.e. the DEA can continue to interdict whatever it wants at the borders,
It can also address ACTUAL interstate commerce in drugs, but within a states boarders the Fed’s have no authority except with respect to interstate transactions.
The issue is not drug enforcement! Even if they did something about crossing borders, then growers in California would still face the feds by selling to Oregon or Washington. Both legal states. And growers and sellers still have banking problems. What to do with thousands in sales revenues? Bitcoin?
The damn issue is congress not doing their job. They need to remove marijuana from schedule 1 drugs instead of giving Trump authority to ignore the law. How many times has the GOP bitched about Obama not enforcing immigration laws?
I was not claiming that constraining the Feds to what is supposed to be their legitimate jurisdiction would solve all problems.
But it would substantially removed the Fed’s from enough to solve the biggest problems.
Yes, CA growers would still face problems selling into OR
I think you would find the banking problems diminish if the Fed’s role diminished.
Though frankly our money laundering laws need to go.
The Feds have jailed people running bitcoin exchanges because they knew that some of their exchanges were facilitating drug trade. Not in the sense that they knew a specific transaction was to get BTC for drugs, but just “knew” in the generic way, and made the mistake of publicly saying so.
Well ALL bankers “know” that they are involved in drug sales, so why aren;t they all in jail ?
But I digress.
Further, if you can not transform your thousands in profits from BTC to $ – so what. Buy things in BTC.
It may take more time than I expected by Crypto Currencies are going to eventually dominate.
They have far too many advantages,
But they will likely grow from the bottom – from underdeveloped countries with poor monetary regimes.
A friend traveled to Africa recently and told me that Cell Service there was as good and cheap as here – but that standard phones pretty much did not exist.
Congress should act on Drugs – but removing MJ from Schedule 1 only requires the DEA to act – and Trump would NOT be ignoring the law.
The scheduling of drugs is an executive function not a legislative one according to existing law.
Someone gave the administration, DEA and FDA authority to place MJ on a schedule as they saw fit.
Since this is a national issue where almost 60% of the population says it should be legalized, and more states than not have legalized or removed most enforcement, then this needs to be a states right issue. The same group that decided it easier to make the executive department responsible should take action now and say this regulation is archaic and no further fed involvement is needed except for border enforcement keeping cartels from sending their product.
“Someone gave the administration, DEA and FDA authority to place MJ on a schedule as they saw fit.”
The Drug laws we passed empowered the DEA etc to decide what drugs to schedule how.
We can and should change the law.
But in the meantime Trump actually does as I understand it have the authority to deschedule MJ.
Obama did NOT have the legal authority to exempt Dreamers from enforcement actions.
I do not think government local, state or federal has any business deciding what people can buy and sell – not even if 80% of the country thinks otherwise.
Rights are what protect you from 80%.
But we are not going to see what I want anytime soon.
What we can have – probably without changing any laws, is our federal law enforcing removing itself from all drug law matters that do not cross borders.
“Rights are what protect you from 80%.”
Unfortunately, too many individuals accept the power of government controlling their lives and that is why we are now a country of people controlled by government instead of a country where people control the government. Exact opposite from what inspired the Declaration of Independence.
The senate has a long tradition of blue slips for the approval of appointments to positions within a state.
The senate is free to change its rules. But this is not a rule I have a problem with.
Because it is being used more frequently and more politically Grassley has noted that it is an advisory rule, and is moving some appointments through even when blue slips are not returned.
Regardless I think the process as it stands is appropriate.
Its a cop out because the senate does not want anyone recording a vote for marijuana legalization.
Just another in a long list of authorities the congress has abdicated to the president that the constitution never granted. When the president swears to uphold the laws of the country, it means all laws, not just the ones they or congress chooses to enforce.
Tulsi Gabbard Democrat from HI interoducing legislation requiring a paper audit trail for every vote.
Myriads of people who understand electronic voting have understood how important this is since before 2000 and the HAV act.
How you fill out your vote – machine, pen, punch cards, computer does not matter.
Two things do. Your ability to visually verify an inatlerable copy of your vote before confirming your vote, and preserving an inatlerable copy of your vote after you have confirmed it.
While there are “technological” means of accomplishing this, the means that will engender the greatest public confidence is to use paper ballots as an audit mechanism.
It does not matter what method you use to vote – so long as you are provided a paper record, that you can review and that will be preserved.
It is far more difficult to commit undetectable voter fraud.
Love Tulsi.
Me too 😍
(Except for the endorsing Bernie part)
Trump is a big advocate of Eminent domain and one of its beneficiaries.
This is a significant area I am far from Trump.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/14/her-little-pink-house-was-her-castle-until-government-said-wasn/4dhJRLjs9vA5VBwIlVhpSN/story.html
We have somewhat the same issue. I40 bypass, master road planning maps drawn up early 90’s. Shortly after, residents were notified they could not make changes to property. Resident could not sell property. Property in estates in limbo. In 2016, state supreme court finally ruled anyone in map plans were entitled to reimbursement at fair market value. That has again been appealed, so no one is getting paid until construction begins and houses demolished.
What we have lost is government is people, but now government is a small group of people that run roughshod over the majority.
Where government actually uses Eminent Domain for a legitimate government purpose,
it must have a compelling need and must pay fair market value.
In all other cases eminent domain may not be used.
Kelo was the use of Eminent Domain for a private purpose that the local government did little more than make up a reason was a public good.
This should NEVER happen.
DAPL was constructed almost entirely without using eminent domain.
We have small pipeline fights all over here. They occur in two areas – approvals, and eminent domain.
I would eliminate both. I can see no need for government to approve a pipeline, and no justification for it to use eminent domain for a private pipeline owner.
HA HA HA HA HAHAH!
This is for real!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HOO!
SEAN HANNITY!
Did Sean pay off a Playboy Bunny to get an abortion too?
So with all the news – that is what you think is important ?
“Classified information came into the possession of the US intelligence community in the early part of 2016 that indicated there was material out there that raised the question of whether [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch was controlling me and the FBI and keeping the Clinton campaign informed about our investigation.”
Comey says polls influenced his choices in the Clinton investigation ?
Papadoulis was unknown to the FBI until AFTER the first FISA warrant.
“If I ever start considering whose political fortunes will be affected by a decision, we’re done.”
“Cause I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump.”
“And even though I did not intend to jam Donald Trump with this, my thinking was, given his approach to the world, he may think I’m pulling a J. Edgar Hoover and assume that I’m trying to dangle this over him to get leverage on him.”
Because you were.
Guess what, Dave. What I think important seems to have influenced the entire social and news network: the Hannity story has gone viral!
That you so quickly dismiss the importance of this revelation speaks volumes of your lack of grasp of the issues.
Maybe over time you’ll figure it out.
Or not.
Cat video’s go viral – so what ?
Gerry Spencer represented Terry Nichol’s
I do not like Hannity, I do not like Cohen, I do not like Trump.
None of that has any meaning with respect to facts, or law, or logic.
Everyone on the Trumpster Right is poo pooing Comey’s remark that he couldn’t rule out Putin has something on Trump. Pointing out how tough Trump has been on Russia lately.
Oh yeah?
..Trump today put the brakes on a preliminary plan to impose additional economic sanctions on Russia, walking back a Sunday announcement by U.S. Ambassador Haley. And last week he erupted in anger when he learned the US had expelled 60 Russian diplomats, far more than England or France. He was “furious” that the US was being portrayed as “tough on Russia.”
Donnie and Vladdie – assholes embracing
I guess bombing the shit out of Russian Allie Syria is not enough fo you.
You and Comey probably think the only proof that Trump is not in Putin’s pocket would be a nuclear war.
Get a Clue. Trump doesn’t seem to give much a a damn about Putin.
If he is Putin’s bitch – Trump is the top.
I am not “pooh poohing” Comey’s remarks.
I think everyone should read them.
They tell you alot about ….. James Comey, and it is not a good story.
Some good, some bad.
But is he lying?
Who comes off worse, Comey or Trump.
Time will tell, and I’m CERTAIN history will see Trump in retrospect as a far larger lump of shit than any other US President in history.
Sorry, Jay there is no question that Comey is lying. He has done so under oath.
His own statements and actions are irreconcilable.
What We do not know is when he is lying
Past that many of his remarks are most damaging to him – if True.
Comey has admitted that the calculus of the elections impacted his choices regarding prosecuting Clinton. That is a violation of his oath to uphold the law and constitution.
In the book he tries to distinguish Clinton from Petreaus – and honestly fails.
He makes a broad claim that no one was ever prosecuted for a federal crime without specific intent. That is garbage and he knows better – it likely happens several times a day.
The vast majority of Federal crimes do not require intent and people are prosecuted under them who had no intent all the time.
Further people are prosecuted for violating 18 cfr 793(f) without intent.
While the Clinton Case was being investigated a sailor was prosecuted for sending other sailors cell phone pictures of his duty station – unfortunately for him, his duty station was classified.
Comey himself provided classified memo’s to a friend to be leaked to the media.
I would further note that Comey makes the same “Kompromat” charge that is made against Trump – against AG Lynch.
Comey is interesting – because over the course of the past 2 years he has been villified by the right AND the left. That either means you are good, or very very bad.
BTW, How Trump comes off in a book that is self serving and lacking credibility is unimportant.
Regardless, The Comey interviews and quotes are great.
James Comey is coming off badly.
Possibly more importantly – we now have Comey, McCabe, and Lynch implicating each other.
That does not end well, and near certainly will drag others in.
I find it interesting. I do not like Trump, Cohen or Hannity, but I do not jump to some idiotic claim that they are engaged in some conspiracy without evidence.
You like Lynch. Comey, McCabe – but are incapable of grasping that at best 2 of the 3 are liars and criminals – by their own words. More likely they all are.
Trump, Hannity, Cohen do nto tell exactly the same story, but their stories are consistent with none of them being guilty of anything beyond being dislikeable.
Lynch, McCabe, and Comey tell stories that can not possibly all be true and each’s story requires the other two to be corrupt.
Yet, you are blind to this, and want to treat each as credible – when they attack someone else you do not like.
People who lie – sometimes tell the truth, but it is very hard to tell when.
Comey, McCabe, and Lynch lack credibility.
Disagree, Jay, Trump has been tough on Russia/Putin lately and I applaud him for that for as long as it lasts.
As far as Comey is concerned, he is taller than Trump, but Trump is a better liar.
Too bad Comey, as intelligent as he may be, didn’t get a better writer for his book and a good P.R. person to handle him.
Anyway, he will make plenty on his book. 🙂
Comey does not come off as that intelligent – maybe top 20%.
He comes off as self righteous – but without actually understanding what integrity is.
He does not seem to grasp that every single time he notes all the other factors he took into account in making a choice, that fundimentally was a legal or ethical choice, he is openly asserting that his ethics are maleable – situational. That he is not the righteous warrior he claims to be.
It might be possible to be a “good person” without principles.
But absent principles, that you adhere to, self righteousness is just sacharine smug hypocracy – and that is how Comey comes off.
Wow! Trump will not do every stupid pointless little thing to Russia that you think he ought to- therefore he must be a Putin puppet ?
Reports from a Swiss lab are that the Poison used in the UK murder were of US not Russian origen. It is still likely that Putin had this guy killed. As I have noted regarding the DNC hacking, These people are smart – Hackers, Russia, Putin – if the trail points back at them, either they wanted it too, or it is WRONG.
Regardless though I beleive that Russia was responsible – not sufficiently to go to war, and honestly not sufficiently to impose sanctions.
When you can not be certain “who done it” – guess what – they get away with it.
We have a similar situation in Syria. I actually listened to Trump’s remarks before the bombing. I thought they were excellent. He pointedly held Putin and Russia responsible.
At the same time there is some doubt about the Chemical Weapons attacks.
Several Sources link the one a year ago to the Rebels. It is now known for certain that the Rebels have chemical weapons. Many of the experts now list the source of the 2017 attack as uncertain.
The recent attack used Chlorine – anyone can make Chlorine – you can do it in your kitchen.
Again there is significant dispute over the actual source of the attack.
I watched a “debate” between Tucker Carlson and someone from an NGO.
I thought the guy from the NGO was more knowledgeable, and more persuasive.
I think Syria did this. But my level of doubt is pretty high. High enough that I am with Carlson – I am not going to war. I am not attacking another country.
But Trump did. He has alternatives if he wanted to avoid angering Putin – and make no mistake Putin is angry. Putin sent Warships to the Med. There was a serious risk of Military confrontation.
Trump could have easily dumped this on congress.
But he did not.
Trump does not do everything he possibly can to piss on Russian and Putin.
Nor does he do everything he possibly can to favor and protect them.
I do not agree with his choices regarding Russia, but they are clearly not the choices of a Russian puppet.
Your bleating is actually dangerous. Ranting that Trump is not tough enough on Russia, may actually drive Trump to be tougher on Russia than he should.
That increases our risk of serious conflict with Russia.
Your garbage risks the loss of lives – ours and others, and it risks direct conflict with a nation that is consequential on the world stage in only ONE way – they have as many nuclear weapons as we do.
“One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason.”
Thomas Sowell
“So Sean Hannity has been using his perch at Fox News to rail against the investigation into someone who he didn’t disclose was his own lawyer.”
-My pal @ChrisMegerian
https://twitter.com/kaivanshroff/status/985977231552974849?s=21
I have no problem firing Hannity – but I would have done that decades ago.
I do not have much respect for the ethics of journalists – Maddow as an example can not possibly have acquired the tiny part of Trump’s tax return legally.
Piss all over Hannity if you want – I do not care much.
But pretting he is much different from the rest is laughable.
There’s about fifty more like this, but you get the idea, Hannity withholding this info was improper. Should he be fired? Suspended? Forced to spend a month polishing Hillary’s shoes 👠?
50 more tweets – wow ?
There are 500M tweets every day.
How about something significant.
Trump’s approval is up another 2 pts.
The generic ballot is closing further.
I would say the Blue wave is dying but the election is months away.
Trump’s Dissaproval is strong.
NBC/Wall Street and Gallup still have him unchanged at 39% Approval and in mid 54%-56% Disapproval.
The recent Gallup Voter Enthusiasm poll shows Democrats with a 9 point lead; Republicans had a significant advantage on this enthusiasm measure in October 1994 before the election in which they gained 53 seats.
There is a WAVE of Republicans who are leaving or have already left The House – double that of Democrats.
Reports in the news yesterday suggest that ALL 5 NJ Republican seats for the midterm elections are vulnerable – these are in traditionally strong Red districts, but Tump’s unfavorability numbers have climbed significantly.
The Woman and Young People vote is decidedly anti Trump. If these voters come out in numbers, the Democrats will dominate.
Trump won’t be the candidate in 2020.
Nikki Haley will be the first female US President.
After Trump, changing demographics and other voting changes, Nicki Hailey will be long forgotten before we have another GOP president.
“Don’t stop beleiving.”
Most every source you cite has ever poll number you cite closing.
I do expect that if D;s field “moderate” democrats for seats in pink teritory they will pick up some seats.
In those special elections they have done so – they have won.
When they have not – they have lost.
But there appears to be a great deal of internal tension over that, and the extremists have the upper hand.
“So Sean Hannity has been using his perch at Fox News to rail against the investigation into someone who he didn’t disclose was his own lawyer.”
So ?
Again I do not like Hannity, I never have. I have not listened to him in years.
But sharing a lawyer is NOT a conflict.
Cohen is barred from sharing information about Hannity with Trump and about Trump with Hannity.
If he has violated that, then he has violated Attonrey Client provilidge and is in very very deep ethical trouble.
You don’t think it’s a problem for him to be criticizing the seizure of that lawyer’s files without alerting his listeners his files may likely be included?
Well, you’re in line with Fox management; they have no problem with it either.
You deserve an invitation to appear on Hannity’s show to lend your support to that conclusion. Here’s your hashmark for follow ups:#MeToo4Hannity
“You don’t think it’s a problem for him to be criticizing the seizure of that lawyer’s files without alerting his listeners his files may likely be included?”
I think that is a matter for Fox and Fox viewers. I did not think you were one of those.
I am certainly not.
I do not think any of these talking heads are credible.
I really do not like Hannity, and have almost never listened to him.
At the same time the court erred in making his name public.
The FBI and SDNYC are not permitted access to any of Cohen’s files that are priviledged.
The warrant issued had to specify the crime being investigated and what was being searched for.
If it was seeking to break priviledge it had to be specific about what priviledged material would be subject to the warrant.
Any communications between Cohen and his clients, and any work product for his clients would be by default priviledged.
Therefore unless the warrant explicitly noted that specific things were not priviledged and exactly why, they remain priviledged and outside the scope of the SDNYC.
Unless SDNYC PROVED a crime fraud exception that applied to Hannity, his name can not be made public and his records can not be accessed by SDNYC.
The same applies to Cohen’s other clients – including Trump.
My guess is that SDNYC did NOT make a crime fraud exception claim – and that Trump related material remains priviledged.
The brief filed by SDNYC has redcations covering the alleged crime, and those are quite short.
It is highly unlikely there is a crime fraud exception claim hiding in the redactions.
More likely SDNYC is taking Cohen at his word when he says that he acted on his own with respect to Daniels.
Though I would note that is a very dangerous approach. If Cohen lied – the priviledge still applies.
To be clear – attorney client priviledge belongs to the CLIENT.
To breach priviledge you have to PROVE that BOTH the client and the attorney engaged in a criminal conspiracy. If either acted alone – priviledge still applies.
If the client confided Criminal acts to the attorney – priviledge still applies.
I do not support Hannity.
I do not support Fox.
The government may not make public the names of an attorney’s clients merely because they have searched his private records.
“The government may not make public the names of an attorney’s clients merely because they have searched his private records.l
That is correct.
But you have your head up your ass on the word ‘merely.’
Obviously once again you’re pontificating from ignorance.
Haven’t you ignored the LEGAL exception to lawyer-client privledge .?. Seems like that is your mode of argument: ignore and distort.
Once again I suggest you read @PopeHat’s discussion Concerning the ‘government’s’ right to confiscate a lawyer’s files; and the LEGAL reason the Judge can demand the name(s) of his client.
Dave, you are a pomposity.
Or to paraphrase Forest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.
It has not been established that SDNYC has sought to breach priviledge.
I have read the redacted SDNYC’s reply brief to the court and Cohen – the redactions are small.
My guess based on that brief and the information that is publicly available is that SDNYC is NOT seeking to breach priviledge.
It appears that SDNYC is SOLELY after Cohen – for acts related to payments to Daniels etc. and things related to his Taxicab business.
Further as I noted before the priviledge belongs to the CLIENT.
It does nto matter what Crimes Cohen has committed – the SDNYC can not get to his priviledged communications unless it can prove the CLIENT conspired with Cohen to break the law.
Further breaching priviledge on one client does nto breach it on all.
Nor does breaching it on one matter breach it on all.
This is why SDNYC setup a special Taint team to go through Cohen’s records,
and why Trump, Cohen and others are demanding a special master.
Regardless of how it is done, a separate group – not the people involved in any investigations will go through the collected records.
They will make a CURSORY check to see if a record meets the search warrant criteria and is NOT priviledged.
If both of those things are not true, that record is not examined further.
Thus far in court proceedings or filings I have not heard a peep about violating priviledge.
Just so you are clear – to breach priviledge the SDNYC has to have compelling evidence – more than probable cause BEFORE the search that priviledge has been waived.
Further waiver is ALWAYS going to be as narrow as possible.
Unless there is a compelling allegation with some proof that Hannity conspired with Cohen
SDNYC is not going to get at communications involving Hannity at all.
Of course they can demand the names of other clients.
Only Cohen communications with clients is priviledged.
The taint team has to know what they CAN NOT look at.
Demanding is not the same as making public.
I have not read Ken White on this – but Ken is a 1A lawyer.
Derschowitz, and McCarthy would be better on this matter.
The law is to be read narrowly, individuals rights are to be interpreted broadly.
SCOTUS just ruled that a congressional law permitting the easy deportation of people convicted of “Crimes of Violence”. does not mean people convicted of burglary – even though just about every state explicitly identifies burglary as a “crime of violence”
In case you do not understand the distinction is between “what is” and “what could be”
SCOTUS said it does not matter what the states have said. Nor does it matter what other federal laws might say – ordinary people are may not understand “Crime of violence” as “what could be”, but they will understand it as “what is”
More insult rather than argument.
Dave, dont you understand if you dont support Hillary, to a liberal you support Trump.
And if you dont support Trump, to a conservative you support Hillary.
To these folks you have an either/or choice. No exceptions!
Dave, hear anything recently about those missing millions of dollars of Trump campaign money? I wonder where it went?
Money in Trump’s campaign is between Trump and his donors.
I did not donate to TFA so I do not care – did you ?
If not then it is not really your business either.
Regardless, Trump is free to spend that in 2020.
I am more concerned about the Trillions missing at DOD – as that is my money.
You’re right. What was I thinking!
I should mind my own business.
They are after all Trump supporters – why should I do anything to alert them they may be getting ripped off.
Even if they’re people I know, or family members, I should keep quiet about it, and let them get screwed in peace. It’s their money, not mine!
Thanks for that reasonable wake up call.
I know I can depend on you for sensible advice like this in the future…
Jay, I understand your concern for a few million dollars, especially since the committee that raised this money has not accounted for all of it. Most was spent on administrative expenses and the those in control have done some “creative” accounting. And lets not forget the 26M that went to an advisor for the first lady.
But why the concern for pocket change and money from donors. Today is tax day, the day Americans tell the government how much it can rob from the citizens to waste. Waste by both federal and state agencies on overpriced defense weapons, defense weapons the DOD does not want, healthcare subsidies to insurance companies that already screw clients and make billions, support programs for illegal aliens, substandard educational programs and too many other projects that provide no benefit other than the employment of hundreds administering these programs. These programs have billions spent that is basically unaccounted for.
Where is your outrage for that. That is our money. Your, mine, our kids, our friends and everyone else you see daily. We had no say in how those funds went to the government. Those dumb enough to pay for an outrageously overpriced party deserve what they get.
Why do some get so pissed about the rich wasting money, but few are upset about the taxes wasted?
Last I checked we had a courts system and it worked.
If someone takes your money and does not do what they promised that is a contract violation.
Sue them.
I am sure the media will pick up the story.
BTW, your echoing tweets here is not “informing” anyone of anything.
Do you think Twitter is secret.
Ron: I agree with you, all the instances you note are valid focuses of criticism. But smaller stupidities are also worthy of comment as well. I’m sure you agree.
” But smaller stupidities are also worthy of comment as well. I’m sure you agree. ”
I cant be concerned with stupid decisions rich people make. Someone wasting $100,000 and as a percentage of net worth is like me wasting $100, its not important. There are too many other things that need my attention.
A general rule of law is that if you are not specifically harmed – you do not have standing to make a claim against someone else.
I have no problem with Trump contributors going after the campaign for missing monies.
Nor do I have a problem with them refering things to law enforcement IF they find evidence that laws have been broken.
Thus far we do not have that.
Sorry to distract from the Trump discussion, but I believe this is noteworthy. Cannabis oil is about $76.00 per. milliter. There are 1000 or so milligrams in a ML. Dosage for seizure control is about 25mg twice daily. Total cost per day about $4.00 (If I Calculated right)
Now a drug company “develops” a drug based on cannabis oil and is asking for USA approval. Now I understand why Trump has directed his DOJ to back off federal enforcement of cannabis and marijuana. Federal government bought by big pharma.
And anyone who thinks a FDA approved drug will only cost $4.00 a day are the same people who think a jack ass is a small horse.
http://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2018/04/marijuana-based_drug_reduces_s.html
Why can’t anyone consume anythng that they think might be helpful for them ?
“Why can’t anyone consume anythng that they think might be helpful for them ?”
Dave are you pulling my chain? Because some f ‘en do gooder that thought they knew what was good for others got a drug made illegal. Then big pharma developed all these opiods that they could charge an arm and leg. Then to protect their excessive prices, they bought off elected officials to make sure that nothing competed with those drugs. Once states began relaxing their laws, the feds made it a point of attention to make cannabis revenues harder to
bank. And someone helped insure the little weasel became AG so the feds cracked down on cannabis products. (,Many more issue to protect drug companies, but this is an overview)
Someone needs to insure when Happy Jack Drug Company develops a drug to control conjestive heart failure and they pay sales personnel to promote the drug to doctors that the drug does what claimed and it is not nothing more than sugar pill. People will die if it is not proven and tested. Who needs to do the review can be debated.
Opioids are cheap.
We can chase the politicized self serving criminalization of Pot back to the 30’s if we want.
What is important is that it is time to end this.
BTW just a significant relaxation in drug laws would have among other effects, a serious reduction in the employment of police officers and prison guards.
There are billions tied up in drug laws in myriads of ways.
The Feds feed police forces more than a Billion in toys each year.
Asset forfeiture delivers even more to the police
all this is over the drug war.
Its time for Nikki Haley to resign. When you get undercut like she did with Russian sanctions, saving a reputation is more important than getting thrown under the Trump bus.
That choice is up to her.
I would not work for Trump.
But I understand that others would and do.
Haley has to decide whether continuing is in her interests.
You and I can not do that for her.
Dave “Haley has to decide whether continuing is in her interests.
You and I can not do that for her.”
Can we not make comments about what we think others should do and not have it interpreted as making a decision for them. Have you never commented you think ===== should do ———-?
I am not suggesting you can not have or voice an oppinion just trying to assure that you(or really others) understand it is an oppinion.
Too many seem to think that their personal judgment must be a legal obligation.
Mill covers that in “On liberty”m
it is one of the reasons that democracy is actually the most oppresive form of government.
There are serious limits to what a king or tyrant can impose on the people – without creating a backlash. There are few limits to what we can impose on our neighbors without backlash.
Again – a long long time until November – but that Blue wave seems to be getting caught in an undertoe
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/18/new-polls-undermine-forecast-blue-wave-midterms/
More on CUNY and free speach (or not)
https://www.city-journal.org/html/cuny-laws-disgrace-15849.html
RonP @ 5:33. Yup, certain big pharma are criminals, just as big Tobacco was/is.
What is “criminal” is that government has used its power to protect an assortment of businesses from the markets.
The tobacco companies were being addressed by tort filings.
Government stepped in forced a mass settlement – depriving individuals and classes of their rights to make further claims and in return the tobacco companies paid the STATES (not those harmed) massive amounts of money – which in many cases actually ended up back in the hands of tobacco companies.
That is a crime to me.
Our system of Drug regulation is to the benefit of drug companies and to the detriment of consumers.
You want to claim that some drug company is criminal – because they charge $600 for an “epi-pen”. – yet it is government regulations and the decisions of regulators that have determined that cost. There are myriads of companies that have tried to compete with the Epi-Pen.
The FDA has barred those products from the market. You will find nearly exactly the same thing every single time some product seems egregiously expensive.
The laws of supply and demand are immutable. Restrict the supply of a product in demand and the price will go up – often exponentially.
Regulation functions as both a restriction on supply and a barrier to entry.
We want businesses to creatively seek means to increase their profits – because that is how we get more, better, cheaper products.
The error here is not that businesses seek advantage through government.
It is that government delivers that advantage.
It is the government that is corrupt and criminal, not the business.
Who commits the great sin when you pay a government official to process your permit faster ?
You for paying to get permission from government to do what you have a right to ?
Or the official who is doing his job in a biased way ?
Get a clue – the criminals, and the corruption are in government.
Big ### just takes advantage of the corruption that already exists.
Some like to say the US government is no so corrupt as tin pot 3rd world dictatorships.
Bunk!!! Our corruption is just institutionalized – we call it the FDA or the USDA or the congress.
We have a formal legal process with the patina of law painted over our corruption.
It is still corruption.
Dave, for discussion. To begin with, there seems to be two issues concerning the current drug company charges and protection.
1. Competition is eliminated due to patent protections,ie Epi-pen (in this case it is not the drug, it is the delivery system).
2. Millions are spent developing new drugs, with many never coming to market.
How do we reconcile these two issues without some sort of protection for scientific advancements? Would you spend millions to develop a product, only to find that I will duplicate your product and sell it for 25% of your price. Any financial model showing this happening would put you in a loss situation for 10+ years.
I dont know the answer. IMO I dont think drug companies would risk large amounts without multiple rewards in return for their investment. I also think drug companies get way to many protections such as cannabis being illegal at the federal level. And I believe our regulations keep drugs off the market that have been used in Europe, Japan and other developed countries without harm to others.
Free markets v intellectual protections. Low cost v profits.
The patent is NOT the issue regarding the epi-pen.
Patents do not last for ever and I am pretty sure the epi-pens expired.
Regardless it is not that hard to come up with a similar solution that does nto infringe on patents.
There real issues are:
The name “epi-pen” is trademarked and if a doctor “perscribes” an epi-pen the pharmacist can not substitute – oddly the opposite is true of drugs rather than devices.
The 2nd issue is that the “epi-pen” is approved – actually it is old enough it was never approved, it is just grandfathered.
Any new similar device must go through a very expensive approval process that is cost prohibitive at the volume that epi-pens sell at.
This problem exists throughout medicine.
I know that “premarin” has much the same issue. It was never really approved, it is so old that it is grandfathered. Creating a decent even better product is simple, but now it would require an expensive approval process.
The epinepharine in an epi-pen costs less than $1.
One company tried to sell a collection of pre-dosed epinepharine syringes – but the FDA shot it down – i.e. required them to go through the full approval process.
There has been a holy war going on over nitroglycerine tablets.
There is absolutely nothing special about them.
But the FDA will not approve a generic substitute even though we are talking about a chemical that is centuries old – there are no patents, but because somebody made a nitroglycerine pill long enough ago that the FDA did not have to approve it they are grandfathered.
But anyone else trying to make the same thing – must get a new approval.
AGAIN – the problem is GOVERNMENT.
Have these companies fought to get these types of stupid protections ?
Sure. But the protections are still from GOVERNMENT.
Dave, Mylan does not have a patent on the drug. That expired years ago. A quote from 9/9/2016 when the Epi-Pen issue was a hot topic. “Mylan has patent protection that lasts through 2025. Epinephrine, as a drug, was first synthesized more than a century ago. It’s been used for various medical applications since then, and was first packaged in an auto-injector (to protect soldiers against chemical warfare) back in the 1970s. But Mylan has a lock on the particular EpiPen design that millions of patients, parents, and school nurses have come to trust.The company’s main innovation has been a bright orange cap that covers the needle, but releases automatically when a patient pushes an EpiPen against her thigh, so there’s no need to stop and unscrew the cover in the midst of an allergy attack.”
the issue is the patent covers the way the drug is delivered and any new device has to be different enough to not be a patent infringement. Many have tried, but they have either failed to come up with a product that will deliver the drug accurately OR their device is too mucjh like the Epi-pen and they can not get around the device patent.
As for your syringes, is this really an alternative to walk around with a syringe in your pocket. Too many issues. Needle breaking, needle bending, container breaking, user (kid) does not get all the drug out of the needle into themselves. The syringes are made for individual over 66 lbs, not for children. Epi-pen auto injector can be used by anyone, syringes should have some form of basic training to insure complete and proper injection since they need to be in a large muscle, unlike Epi-pen.
And by the way, the new syringe delivery system available at the end of this year to deliver that $1.00 worth of drug is projected to cost over $100.00 per dose. And add to the the buck or so for the syringe and they are making $98.00 on a $2.00 item.
Ron
I was not trying to get into the technical details – and honestly they are NOT relevant.
The BIG EpiPen protection is the NAME.
If a Doctor perscribes an EpiPen – then the pharmacist MUST provide the branded product.
This is true of all medical devices and it is the oposite of drugs.
The NEXT issue is that the EpiPen is a grandfathered product. It did not have to get through the current medical device review process, it was approved long ago and will never need an expensive re-approval.
But ANYTHING trying to replace the EpiPen Must get through a very expensive approval process. The cost of the process and the size of the market sets the price. And thus far the process is expensive enough and the market size small such that the price of a new device will be high. Further though EpiPens are ridiculously expensive – their manufactured costs are so low that any potential competitor knows they will be bankrupted if they enter the market.
Essentially regulation makes the markets work backwords.
Without regulation a monopoly product must still keep the price low enough to discourage others from entering the market.
But with a large regulatory barrier the price can be as high as the market will bear – because if a competitor enter the market you drop the price until they go bankrupt – because they had to absorb a huge approval cost.
The patents are NOT an issue – it is not hard to design arround them – there are real competitors – and some are being used in Europe.
This is a case of pure regulatory monopoly.
The syringe solution was just an effort to break the monopoly. The company that put it forward knew it was inferior – but it was cheap, and the hope was by NOT using new technology and a new design they could avoid the expensive approval costs.
I would also note that the objections you raised can all be solved.
A predosed syringe would never be as conveinient as an EpiPen,
But they were talking $15 for a 6 pack.
If I had a choice between a $600 EpiPen and a $2.50/dose syringe that was less convenient – I would pick the syringe and save money.
BTW their are syringes now that fit into a container the size of a chapstick.
A single does could be smaller and more convenient than an EpiPen.
But it would still require removing a cap and pushing a plunger.
Ron
Again designing arround the patent is trivial.
The problem is that the approval costs and the market size dictate a minimum cost.
While that cost is FAR lower than the PRICE of EpiPen, it is FAR higher than the COST of EpiPen.
If you get into the market the Price of EpiPen will be dropped until you are bankrupt.
Further the perscription rules for medical devices mean that it will be harder to grow market share against EpiPen.
With respect to #2.
The first issue is that we must as a country accept that there is no one single process that is right before marketing a drug.
Assuming that you think government should be involved at all – and I do bot.
It is still reasonable to say that drugs for terminally ill people require little testing.
Drugs for generally healthy children require rigorous testing.
With a wide wide range of possibilities in between.
That is an arrangement that government is horribly bad at.
Government is abysmal at dealing with the fact that different people have different wants and needs.
I worked on a library addition to a very wealthy persons home, the addition cost $1.5M
I spent less than $60K to add the same space to my home.
But I did not build for centuries out of marble and oak and steel.
One size does NOT fit all.
Building codes make buildings better – but they make them more expensive and they make them more and more alike.
They make it so that poorer people can not afford a home.
We could make a car today for 2-3 thousand dollars. It would not meet current standards.
Though it would be superior to say a Model A.
If you were poor and your choices was a $2000 car that you could afford, that might only last 5 years, and might be less safe in an accident and be powered by something little more than a lawnmower engine – might you buy it rather than walk ?
Laws and regulation preclude things. They preclude bad things. but they also preclude good things. And worse they preclude things that are less good than what we have, but of more value to someone. A car is better than no car.
A less well tested drug is often far better than no drug.
Do not get me wrong – I am not at all opposed to scientific advances,
But the fact is that the protections scheme we have impedes advances, it does not protect them.
I get thoroughtly ticked that we bitch and moan about China’s IP protection.
Today it is generally almost as good as what our founders created.
It is our IP regime that is broken – not theirs.
IBMK did a study of patents about 2 decades ago and found that completely eliminating our patent system entirely would probably have a positive impact on innovation.
Even for small inventors. It is always easier for the big players to buy rather than steal.
I am heavily involved in the open source world.
I have met and worked briefly with Richard Stallman – who essentially invented Open Source.
He is almost ideologically communist.
But if you know much about how Open Source and particularly the GPL works it is extremely capitolistic.
What it does – and quite effectively is make explicit the rewards for working together.
I am currenlty involved in work on a new CPU called the RISC-V.
This is a totally open CPU.
It is getting support from Nvidia, Micron. WD – lots and lots of major players.
They are all working together to improve it.
Why ? Because doing it themselves has proven expensive – Nvidai, and WD as an example spend 100M’s a year supporting their own proprietary processors that are burried in their devices.
The alternative is to spend 100M’s on licenses to intell, AMD, Arm, ….
Or today they can use RISC-V. RISC-V is fairly comparable head to head with ARM
But ARM is expensive to license and RISC-V is free,
Equally important RISC-V is now broadly enough accepted that WD Nvidia can hire engineers who are already familiar with it. While if they develop their own they must support development and training to new people.
I can go on, but the point is that opensource is creating a world where there are benefits to everyone for sharing, and you can still do your proprietary secret sauce stuff – in narrow areas were you seek to distinguish your products.
It ain’t criminal cause Mr. Mucus says so. RonP talks about opioids and big pharma at 5:33 and Mucus throws out epi-pens in response. Twists and turns to distort discussions, par for the course.
And, before you give me permission to not read/read your comments, I don’t care what you think, it is meaningless.
Aparently you can not read.
The POINT of the EpiPen exploration was that Regulation is a MAJOR – the MAJOR factor in drug and medical device costs today.
When you see a ridiculously priced Drug that ALWAYS means:
The approval cost is high, the market is small, and there is a single entrenched producer with LOW production cost who will be able to bankrupt anyone trying to enter their market BECAUSE of the high approval costs.
If you want affordable medicine – get rid of the FDA, they do FAR more damage than good.
I am very glad I am not you.
I would not want to be the person who writes the things you write.
I try hard not to presume to know what is in the minds of others.
But it is hard not to expect that it is very dark inside yours.
Excellent editorial that really captures the entirety of this mess
Apparently you can read, but selectively. Perhaps you need a special kind of support animal to keep you on POINT.
RonP and I talk about opioids and you talk about e-pens. This is your corkscrew way of discussing all subjects. Sad, because you seem intelligent and informed.
Please read the thread.
Epi-Pens came up as a result of Ron’s remarks about the greedy ways of big pharma.
Ron understood my response.
You are clueless as always.
I retract my last sentence. As always you twist to your own drummer.
Facts, logic, reason.
Even the most rational among us have lost patience with President Asshole:
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/987535533361348608?s=21
Again, I am seriously interested in Ken White’s comments about the law – particularly the first amendment.
But I have found that Twitter is a good test of people.
Some – like Glenn Greenwald or Alan Derschowitz manage to stick to the principles regardless of who is president, regardless of who they like or dislike.
Others such as Lawrence Tribe – a highly respected constitutional law professor who leans left, completely lose they principles and objectivity.
When ones view of the law changes with who you are applying it to, ( am sorry for you.
Some believe government should have a large amount of control over all aspects of life, such as a government run one payer health reimbursement system, EPA regulations controlling individual property owners rights to plow fields and restrictions on size of sugary drinks.
Others believe there should be few regulations, that government is the problem, that all business is free to do what they want and due to tort liabilities, they will always do the right thing.
Neither position is logical!
https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/04/21/faa-issues-inspection-order-for-boeing-737-engines/
Southwest Airlines and others ignored manufacturer and FAA recommendations. The result, one dead. Yes, she had a choice, to fly on this type plane or not. Free marketers will say she should have researched FAA recommended maintenance, researched the companies maintenance of those planes and decided to fly on a different flight on a different plane. She did not do that.
On the other hand, the FDA is withholding a drug that kills the flu virus within 24 hours that has been used in Japan safely. Might be approved in a couple years . While they are testing a proven safe drug, maybe a couple hundred people will die from the flu that might not had the drug been available.
usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/02/12/flu-gone-day-japanese-maker-touts-new-drug/329199002/
The answer. Maybe adding some “common sense” to regulation. If you see a threat (potential harm, ie Airline engines) issue a recall. If you see no threat ( drugs used safely in foreign countries) allow usage under limited situations until some limited tested in the USA has been conducted.
I agree with you, in principal.
Some want as little government as possible; others want a lot more.
And as usual the extremes bollox it up.
But as life becomes more complex, balancing the two pulls is excruciating 😖.
Ten Congressmen came to the Hill
Each one of them proposed a new Bill
Although half the bills were Silly
All were approved Willy Nilly
In the government Dance Quadrille
Is it the complexity of life or the thinking of people that most people can not make decisions for themselves. For example, there are 1,458 words in the Declaration of Indepenence. There are 4,548 words in the Constitution. There are 11,588,500 words in Obamacare legislation.
One created our country
One created the government we live by
One created a program to control one business model.
One created freedoms
One insured those freedoms
One infringed on freedoms.
How many billions of words would be needed today to create our constitution if written today.
Huh?
One who?
I don’t get your meaning?
Different problems have different solutions.
Some things behave linerarly, some behave asymptotically,
Some follow some form of bell like curve.
Only those problems that follow a bell like curve are best addressed by moderation.
And even those for those problems the objective is usually to approach as close as possible to some maximum. That is still not an argument for “moderation”, it is an argument for finding the facts, determining the nature of the curve and moving toward the optimum.
I have noted REPEATEDLY, that we KNOW that the rate of increase of standard of living declines as the size of government increases – for all government sizes larger than 20% of GDP.
This data is extremely robust – over time, over different countries accross the world.
The exact same correlation exists with economic freedom – greater freedom always means faster increases in standard of living for all.
Everything that most of us – right or left want.
A cleaner safer world, longer better lives.
Less conflict, less racism, less violence of all kinds, less descrimination of all kinds.
All declines as standard of living rises.
It is not government or regulation that causes the improvements in our lives.
Those improvements are the consequence of rising standard of living.
Not only does the evidence show that. But so does logic and human nature.
The man dying of thirst has little concern for whether the water he drinks might have a risk of giving him cholera.
Everything the left wants – everything any of us wants with respect to life will not occur – until we have a high enough standard of living to afford it.
No amount of regulation will solve the problems the left demands solutions to – until we are able to afford to impliment those demands.
Further if we want something – and the fact that we create regulations suggests that many of us want something, when were are able to we will pay to get that thing.
That is the history of humanity.
Southwest started the process of inspecting the engines for all similar aircraft practically before the jet touched down.
The world is not perfect.
It is not perfect with regulation.
It is not perfect without it.
Only those pushing regulation operate under the delusion that the world can be made perfect.
The recent incident is the first of its kind in the US in years.
It has been years since a US airline passenger has been killed in a airline accident.
Even globally air safety is WAY up.
Air Travel is far safer than it was when it was highly regulated.
Southwests own quick response should demonstrate to you that the FAA’s actions are redundant.
Left on their own – free markets will make mistake – but they will learn from those mistake – not merely from fear of torts, look at the efforts Zuckerburg has gone to to repair Facebooks reputation ? FB lost 50B in shareholder value over the announcement that CA got alot of peoples data. No crime, no misconduct, just something users and shareholders did not like.
No regulation in the world could get Zuckerburg’s attention quite so well.
Dave “Left on their own – free markets will make mistake – but they will learn from those mistake”
Well they made a huge one on this one. And I will not use “common sense” again since what most people think is common sense is not what you and some others would call common sense.
I will use making decisions in the best interest of others to avoid harm. Harm to others and harm to yourself. We have a proven situation where previous engines have been identified as having metal fatigue. The FAA recommended inspection within a certain time period. The manufacturer went further and sent out red flag messages that this is too long, the inspection period needs to be shorter to get all the engines inspected faster due to the chances of something bad happening was real. Southwest and others refused to inspect the engines due to cost and downtime of the largest type of planes in their fleet which would have caused flight interruptions.
So “Left on their own – free markets will make mistake – but they will learn from those mistake”. Tell that to the family of the woman partially sucked out of the plane and killed. Her family will feel better knowing they learned from her death.
But had the decision been made to avoid harm to someone else or themselves, the planes would have been inspected when the people who built the plane engines and know the workings as well as anyone made that recommendation. Instead they continued flights due to cost and loss of profits that harm no one other than a few cents on a quarterly dividend.
And by the way, doing the recommended maintenance. That is what I CALL COMMON SENSE!
“Well they made a huge one on this one”
How so ?
In the real world things fail – even things made by humans fail.
We strive for perfection. The safety record of airlines has improved phenomenally since deregulation.
I beleive it has been a decade since the last airline death as a result of equipment failure.
Look – hold the people involved responsible – I fully expect that.
But highly regulated systems do no better.
You noted the FAA demanded inspections AFTER the airlines and Boeing had already started doing exactly that.
In the real world we do not get perfection, but we do get better and better.
Do you understand that your odds of dying during air travel are far far far less than a car trip to the grocery store ? Or being struck by lightning ?
From what I see the airlines are doing incredibly well.
Anything made from metal and subject to stress will eventually fail from metal fatigue.
The claim that there was a failure from metal fatigue is pretty much a given.
Other engines experienced metal fatigue ? Of course they did ALL engines experience metal fatigue.
You can not prevent metal fatigue, or failure.
Nor is it an instantaneous phenomena.
Metals under stress gradually get weaker and weaker – that is metal fatigue.
Eventually they become weak enough to fail.
You can not prevent them from experiencing fatigue.
Nor is their a single objective.
We could inspect every single engine thoroughly before every flight.
Travel costs would skyrockets – deaths from other causes would increase,
but we might reduce a once a decade failure to once every two decades.
Do you check the presure in your tires everytime you drive – the fluids ?
Why do you expect airlines to behave differently than you ?
Perfect safety is not acheiveable.
The standard for industry today is 6 sigma
that is 3.4 failures per million over the long term.
Airlines carry 809M passengers/year.
Airline fatalities as 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles:
While auto fatalities are 1.17 per hundred million passenger miles.
And the most dangerous more of transportation is walking.
Just to be clear – it is trivial for a regulator to recomend – you should do X things would be safer.
It is always possible to make anything safer – atleast by direct measures.
Lets look from a PURELY safety perspective at this situation.
Lets say we double the frequency of engine inspections and the result is a decrease by a factor of 4 in the lives lost – so now we are down to 0.02 deaths per billion passenger miles.
First the FAA is still going to be able to correctly note – that you could inspect even more and reduce deaths further.
But lest say that increased inspections result in either 10% fewer flights or 10% higher cost and therefore 10% fewer passengers.
Lets assume that 50% of the reduction is replaced by car or rail travel.
You will ultimately end up with MORE total deaths.
What you – and the FAA fail to realize – and another part of why “common sense” is crap, is that everything is part of a system.
I beleive I talked about the way that farm equipment manufacturers test axles.
They test them to failure. Then they redesign the decrease the likelyhood of failure at the point of failure.
But they have to be careful with this process – because ultimately if you just keep testing to failure and strengthening the point of failure all that happens is that eventually your lightest axle becomes your heaviest.
The objective is NOT to eliminate failure.
It is to radically reduce it under the 1% most likely worst conditions.
It is always possible to fail something.
Making one part of an axle incredibly strong – just moves the failure elsewhere.
Increasing the safety of a system that is orders of magnitude safer than other systems at the cost of even a small shift to other less safe systems on net makes us LESS safe, not more.
Even the FAA knows this – but you never get fired for saying – make something safer, even if that actually makes us all less safe.
What I am addressing is the phenomena that Bastiat wrote about 200 years ago in “that which is seen and that which is unseen”.
You as well as most people are confused about how prices work.
You think that prices are merely about making a buck.
Prices also encourage or discourage different activities.
Low prices for airtravel ENCOURGE the use of the safest form of transportation we have.
Higher prices DISCOURAGE the use of the safest form and move people to LESS SAFE forms.
Prices are a message to people – “choose me”.
If you want people to chose the safest option – that option needs to be the cheapest option too.
Even if small amounts of safety must be sacrificed to make that means more attractive.
Just to be clear.
The safest possible outcome is NOT the recomendation of the FAA.
It is not the recommendation of the engine manufacturer.
I do not know that Southwest and the other airlines actually got it right, but I strongly suspect they did.
The safest result is the arrangement that results in the fewest deaths in the entire system.
Not the fewest airtravel deaths.
If Airtravel has 10 times the current death rates – but prices that resulted in doubling airtravel and reducing other forms of travel the result would be STRONGLY net positive.
This is a permutation of the same fallacy we get into with gun control.
Austrailia’s tough gun laws have actually virtually eliminated mass shootings.
But they have had no effect on the treds of mass killings – or other overall death rates.
What is your objective – to reduce gun deaths – or to reduce deaths ?
What is your objective – to reduce airtravel deaths or to reduce travel deaths ?
I do not have quite enough information to do the math.
But the safety of airtravel is so radically greater than other forms of travel, that ANY proposed measure increasing flight safety would have to have near zero cost to not be net negative.
Please quit trying to sell common sense.
It is like “fair” a meaningless term.
Jay thinks Gun regulations are “common sense” – despite the fact that there is ZERO evidence to support them.
It is easy for people to say something, even argue that it is reasonable.
Most everything van be made to sound reasonable with half the facts.
I got this really good deal on beef shanks at the grocery store.
Three of them, big and juicy.
So, should I pressure cook or slow cook them?
Or just simmer them overnight on the stove?
The butcher at the market, who gave me the great deal, is a Portuguese American who frequently shares his recipes and other cooking advice. He said he’s searing his in hot oil, and then braising them in the oven for 6 Hour. But first he’s gonna name them, so he can cheer them on as they sizzle: he says he always chooses names of those who annoy him whose asses he’d like to see fried.
My three shanks – Trumpie, Paulie, and Jared – are cooling in the refrig now. For desert I’m thinking pie ala Stormy, with whipped cream and a 🍓
A fried ice cream Cohen.
Y’all need a food recall. Your getting food poisoning from that dinner.
Are you really going to eat the rotten Trumpie? Your butcher saw a sucker coming when he was able to unload Trumpie, Paulie and Jared.
Sorry, guess I understood myself. What I was trying to say is everything people in government do today is way too involved and complicated. And what they do is too intrusive.
So I used three documents as examples. The one which declared are freedom and independence, one that created the government that was designed to insure those freedoms and one which infringed on individual freedoms.
Why did it only take 4500 words to create this government, but 11M to create Obamacare?
You commented about complexity today to my issue with common sense. 4500 words is using common sense. 11M is creating complexity.
I thought what you wrote was clear.
Dave, do you understand how fucked up this is?
That the family of a former Republican President doesn’t want the present Republican President to attend a family funeral ?
Don’t you yet understand how detrimental this idiot is to the nation?
Why aren’t you out there calling for his removal?
Your idea of the nation seems to be thoroughly emotional.
The Bush’s should have whoever they want at Barbara Bush’s funeral.
The nation is not harmed by any of the crap you seem to think harms it.
But it was harmed greatly by eight years of sub 2% growth.
I am still ambivalent about Trump.
There is alot to like.
There is alot to hate.
But with each passing day it be becomes more and more certain – he is a much better president than either of the past two.
It is interesting – Bush II was a good man. I think Obama was a good man. Bush I was a great man. None of them were particularly good presidents.
Bill Clinton was a bad person. He was a good president.
Trump is not such a hot person, he is on the way to being a good president.
Things may change
Further I wish that we could have a president that was both a good person and a good president.
I will continue to vote for character.
But I am not going to whig out over stupid things as you are.
No Trump is not bad for the nation.
Nor is he an idiot – though the fact that you think he is bad for the nation and an idiot raises alot of questions about you.
Why am I not calling for his removal ? Because his ACTIONS as president are pretty good.
He judicial nominees have been the best in my lifetime.
He is putting almost 50% federalists on the courts – federalists are about the closest you can get to being libertarain and still be republican.
He is choicking the regulatory state in a way that has not been done since Carter.
Even some very deeply nevertrump libertarians are noticing.
His cabinet may be the best in my lifetime – regardless, most are proving very effective – though some more quietly than others.
I think he has made some foreign policy mistakes. We should be leaving afghanistan, and I do not think we should have attacked Syria recently. But mostly he is doing very well in foreign policy.
I really do not like what he says about Trade. But in the end what he does does is not what he says.
He is making difficult risky choices – such as trying to resolve things with North Korea.
That appears to be going good. But even if it goes horribly – no one else tried.
These are things that matter to me.
I can also list things I am not happy with – but pretty much every one, was true with Obama too, and Bush, and would have been with Hillary.
I could be alot happier. I am not happy with Trump,
But he is not Bush, he is not Obama, and he is not Hillary – and that is very good.
Nor do I think that any of the other republicans who ran in 2016 would have accomplished what he has.
I think he is occasionally wrong, but I think there is actually an important difference between Trump and all the rest of the candidates. He is not a republican, he is not a democrat.
He is his own person – sometimes wrong, but not beholden to anyone.
I do not know that he beleives in all his own policies.
But I do think he beleives in the intrinsic greatness of this country.
And honestly – the media, the left, you, Obama, and even Bush do not really.
American is not great because we are polite or cooperative, or couth, but because we accomplish things – sometimes with some breakage along the way.
“Don’t you yet understand how detrimental this idiot is to the nation?
Why aren’t you out there calling for his removal?”
Jay one can dislike the current president for every bit of dislike they can gather and there is still only four ways for a president to leave office. One is to die, one is the 25th amendment, one is by impeachment and one is to be removed by the electorate.
Each one of us has one way to make it happen. through the election process. We only have say in the last two by electing someone else or electing representatives that will begin the impeachment process. But right now, being an asshole, incompetent moron is not an impeachable offense.
So I will asked you again as I have in the past. What good would it do for Dave or myself to write on this blog daily and retweet every negative thing about Trump that shows on the internet? Not a damn thing in my estimation.
It is not likely I will vote for Trump in 2020.
It is less likely I will vote for someone the democrats run – but I can hope. There are democrats I could vote for, just not ones with a chance.
It is unlikely that Trump will be impeached – and absent something I have not seen yet – I would not support impeachment.
I can complain about Trump – there is alot to complain about, but by the measures that are important to me – and I think most people, he is so far the best president of the 21st century.
That does not mean he is good, or that he does not annoy me.
Further I do not think President Pence would be an improvement.
While he likely would be more dignified, and that would be appreciated, there is no good reason to beleive he would be more effective.
I( do not support everything Trump has done.
But I do support the return of the rule of law to the presidency.
Trump has undone the extra constitutional excesses of Obama and has thus far been completely disinclined to rule by the “pen and the phone”
I do support his strongy federalist judicial nominations.
I do support his efforts to slash federal regulation, which thus far are working far better than predicted.
I do support tax reform.
I has some disagreements on Foreign Policy – we should be leaving afghanistan, we should not have bombed Assad, and if ISIS is truly defeated we should be getting out of Syria.
But otherwise he is doing surprisingly well in foreign policy
I do not support his blustering with respect to Trade, but MOSTLY thus far it has been bluster,
He has not started a trade war.
I do not support anyone on immigration, but he is no worse than the left.
Overall, I am happier with Trump than any libertarian can rightfully expect out of a major party candidate. That is far from happy. But certainly Bush III, Waren, Clinton or Sanders would have been worse.
Jay Michael Cohen is full of BULL SHIT!
According to USA Today, a much more reliable source of news than Twitter Crap, they say:
“Trump’s absence isn’t unusual for a sitting president. The last president to attend a first lady’s funeral was John F. Kennedy, who went to Eleanor Roosevelt’s service in 1962.
Former president Barack Obama did not attend Nancy Reagan’s funeral in 2016 or Betty Ford’s in 2011, and Bill Clinton did not attend the funeral of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.”
So start doing some research before retweeting someones moronic comments that are unsubstantiated. Even the fact checking sites like Snopes can not substantiate the comments Michael Cohen picked up from Facebook. It only took me about 1 minute to find 5-6 sites that gave the reason Trump did not attend and none said he was ordered to not attend.
Interesting how we argue about a subject, it becomes a center piece of our elections, it is top news for months, our steel producers are going to get a huge impact and then nothing. And the fact that nothing is happening just shows how we, as a society, are so manipulated by politicians and special interest groups for their own personal advancement.
http://www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/update-keystone-xl-dealt-loss-uncertainty-mounts
America was once naive enough to produce a high percentage of leadership people with integrity
I am not so sure that is so.
Past elections were far more bitter than today.
Burr killed Hamilton.
At times our founders sought to jail each other.
And lest we forget a signifcant portion of our founders OWNED other men.
I think what they accomplished is incredible.
But I am less sure they were exceptional men.
“I think what they accomplished is incredible.”
Yes, but I think the difference today is most decisions made benefited the masses then and now most decisions benefit a minority, special interest and personal well being.
Not saying all decisions they made were good, but today the decisions made for minorities, but conservative and liberal minority groups have divided this country into two distinctive groups. In the past, other than during the civil war periid, it seems the country was much more united.
And my definition of minority in this comment is any special interest that does not have the majority of Americans support or interest as top priority.
Their decisions were no better than today.
The scandals and profiting at the government trough were if anything worse than today.
The most noteable differences is that the constitution was interpreted more narrowly so there was less trouble that they could get into.
The country was more strongly divided then than now. Ultimately resulting in a civil war.
Government is not supposed o be advancing anyones interests. Minority of majority.
“Government is not supposed o be advancing anyones interests. Minority of majority”
So I need to do a better job explaining, but I try to limit my words as anything over 100-150 gets deleted and not read by most accounts.
Advancing a majorities interest. Example, equal rights amendment where it is illegal to discriminate on a number of issues. Just one segment, women, is the majority of America.
Advancing a minorities interest. Forcing a baker to decorate a wedding cake in a gay design when the baker refused due to religious reasons. From reports, they did not refuse to sell the cake, they refused to use their artistic abilities to decorate in a manner objectionable to them.
Yes, elected officials have always been corrupt. That is how they achieved power and took control of the machines that moved them through the electorial system. Maybe 20% are not, the rest I would not trust.
The equal rights clause in the 14th amendment bars discrimination by GOVERNMENT.
The constitution does not empower government to bar private discrimination – it can not.
Who a baker(or anyone) chooses to sell to is not the business of government.
“Who a baker(or anyone) chooses to sell to is not the business of government.”
Really?
https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
He can’t help but overstate.
He was wrong on the baker.
And obviously on ‘anyone.’
(Pornography to children, etc).
I’m having problems posting via my iPad. Pasting and back spacing are a problem… WordPress sucks,
“He can’t help but overstate.”
I am stating principles.
If you wish to try to state the current law – go ahead. There are 50 states and it is different in each state. Not only is it different – but the exact same law – most states have passed the RFRA is interpretted radically differently by that states courts.
Further there is a federal RFRA – which the federal courts interpret essentially as the First amendment means what it says and Public Accomidations laws are inferior to religious freedom.
But SCOTUS in one of its most odd decisions ever has found that while the first amendment and RFRA must be applied strictly to the federal government and federal law, that states are free to apply it as they please. A very bizzarre decsion – because the meaning of a right is something that Government – not any government can infringe on.
But then you are clueless as to the harm that is caused by this
Play it be ear, the law means what I FEEL it means, Rights are what I am in the mood for today leftist garbage brings.
One of the reasons for principles is because you can guide your life, society and government by principles. Everyone can understand and follow a principle whether they agree or not.
When government is constrained by principles, and those principles are kept narrow and few,
Everyone knows what conduct will subject them to force.
All other constraints on your conduct are then rooted on personal principles or your need to live with others.
No one may be forced to do what another wishes – that is a principle.
It is why rape is illegal. It is also why the baker is free to choose their own customers.
We are all still free to express out displeasure at the choices that others make.
The baker who refuses to bake cakes for the weddings of gay couples,
can not force others to buy from him, or be silent about their displeasure at his choices.
Not only is that the right principle. It is the only principle that will not make a disasterous mess of society.
“He was wrong on the baker.”
How so ? I stated a principle – just a permutation of Kant’s catagorical imperative or the NAP
“And obviously on ‘anyone.’
(Pornography to children, etc).”
Only in your head. First children and the incapacitated are universally treated differently.
You must have the ability to enter into an agreement to be able to do so.
You want to pretend to be opposed to principles – and yet at the same time offer the equivalent of principles.
You want providing pornography to children universally barred – WHY ?
What fundimental value is offended ?
I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out to you that you accept broad principles.
You presume – probably correctly that the law regarding giving pornography to children is the same in every state. Well the law regarding who you may refuse to sell a cake to is not even close to the same.
Yet the issue is very close to the same – the rights and responsibilities of adults for their choices.
The freedom to contract requires that all parties are freely able to contract.
You may not contract with a pig, or a tree. You can only contract with humans.
And only those who have the capacity to form a contract.
Article I, section 10, clause 1.
No State shall …. pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
For much of US history that precluded precisely the garbage you refer to in CO.
Regardless Ron, I make arguments rotted in facts, logic, reason and principles.
Quite often the law conforms to facts, logic, reason and those principles – sometimes however our laws are quite stupid.
There is a twitter feed that will deliver to you each and every day a new example of a totally stupid federal crime. They will never run out.
I seem to recall one recently that made it a crime to sell meat that smells – unless the smell is not too bad.
Seriously, I am not joking. Garbage like that passes for law.
I am not interested in an argument that something is illegal.
Breathing is illegal in some state.
I can’t remember exactly what we were addressing in these comments and I refuse to try to find the original comment once it gets this long, so will follow your comment with this.
In both extremes of the political environment, which now is more the rule than the exception, the desire is to insure rights for those in a minority while infringing on rights by controlling individual actions of the majority.
Rights belong to individuals not groups.
No right infringes on the rights of others – except the right of individuals to initiate violence.
The conflict is between powers of govenrment and rights of individuals.
In all or very nearly all cases individual rights should prevail.
Left right – it should not matter.
Dave “Rights belong to individuals not groups”
You have told me this many times and many times I reply I understand that completely.
“The conflict is between powers of govenrment and rights of individuals.
In all or very nearly all cases individual rights should prevail.”
But the issue today is too few people understand that fact. Today people truly believe that their rights are provided by the government. The second amendment does not give the individual the right to bear arms, it prevents the government from taking that individual right away. The first amendment does not give people the right to free speech, it is there to keep the government from silencing people if it does not like what they are saying. All of the rights in the bill of rights keeps government from taking something away, it does not give anyone anything.
But go into most any school today and if they are teaching history or government, most all teachers will present that document as one that gives the rights to people and not that it prevents government from taking that inherent right away. Many universities will have the same slant on the subject. That is why they have moved so much closer to how universities controlled speech on campus before the free speech movement of ht late 60’s and early 70’s. Today most conservative personalities are prevented from speaking because the students do not want anyone hearing what that person has to say.
We are now at the point that health care is a right. That is how most people that supported the PPACA see health care. And I could list too many other “rights” that are not “rights” that people think are guaranteed.
This country is heading for much more than political sniping. We have a state that refuses to enforce federal laws, but cities and counties within the state are refusing to follow state laws. Now we have counties refusing to enforced state laws when it comes to gun control.
Maybe I am wrong when I say people do not know enough about the constitution. Maybe they are beginning to understand government does get its power from the people and people are beginning to rescind the powers government has achieved in the past.
I say “power to the people”. Heading in the right direction!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illinois-county-votes-to-become-sanctuary-county-for-gun-owners/ar-AAw5tg6
This is worth watching, a time most citizens believed in American exceptionalism, because then America was exceptional.
http://www.openculture.com/2018/04/immaculately-restored-film-lets-you-revisit-life-in-new-york-city-in-1911.html
look at how much has changed and is still changing.
America remains exceptional.
I would also note that you are looking at NYC during the Tammney hall era.
Nostalgia makes us see the past as better than it was.
I read almost no news, just a quick glance at the headlines on odd days. But I have an interest in people like Bush 41, so I did read this one.
/www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/23/i-thought-i-was-done-george-h-w-bush-faced-death-at-20-during-wwii/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44225e0f2e9f
How we have changed, and not in a good way. Of course this truly qualified man was rejected by his own party after one term, a party that was not nearly so wacko as it is today, but was already setting off on its great downward journey.
At least there are still 55% of us who can tell shit from shinola. The fact that 40% can’t see what is wrong with their party and its leader will never cease to boggle my mind. Anyone who cannot compare Bush 41 with trump and comprehend the terrible fall in integrity, intelligence, honour, guts, everything, is truly a lost soul. Anything he does that they can use as an excuse to accept him in spite of his hideous character will be reversed at some point and all they will be left with is “I sold my soul to trump and the trumpies and all I got was this lousy bumper sticker”
It is not hard to find similar stories about John McCain, another truly heroic republican who has been left behind by his party as it heads into its nihilistic future.
I don’t have any illusions that the GOP used to be some wonderful thing, but it had a sizable component of people I could respect and relate to. That component is dwindling and on the run.
Perhaps a maracle will occur and someday they will get so sick of their FUBAR party that they find a way to unite with the remains of the sensible dem party. Once can dream, right?
Common sense and common decency have rarely been so far away from politics in my lifetime.
“Common sense and common decency have rarely been so far away from politics in my lifetime.”
Grumpy, careful, we cant use “common sense”. Seems like that does not exist.
My only reply to your comment is the fact you left out two important facts. One, did “real” republicans nominate Trump, or did he bring together disgruntled independents, democrats, republicans and others who felt left out and combine untraditional voters to gain the nomination. . Two, can we not say the same about the democrats and their far left BS.
There are not 55% that can tell shit from shinola. Its just the type of shit because the left supports moronic programs, while others support a moronic president. Moronic in either situations is unacceptable. I think only 30%-35% can tell the difference.
We need to remember JFK’s words about “Ask not what your country can do for you……”
I was not careful enough with words, you got me. My meaning was that 55% of us can tell that trump is a completely rotten tomato. But yes, of those 55% many of them would swallow Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz, or Sheriff Arpaio, or Micheal Moore or that lefty senator lady from Mass. or Rob Ford, if he were alive and practising politics in the USA. Probably 80% of the country’s voters can tell shit from shinola some part of the time. Some of course think anything is shit if it comes from the other team and everything is filet mignon if it comes from their own team. I have no use for these people, the blinded partisans.
I wonder what percentage of the country would meet my definition of being able to reliably avoid falling into right or left (or other) bullshit, moonbeams and nonsense? Some days I think it might be 40%, some days it think it might be 10%.
People seem to becoming more gullible and yet more cynical at one and the same time. Is that possible?
As a complete non sequiter I was completely shocked and dumbfounded that Comey would write a book at this point in time. His role in the events of teh recent past and therefor in the unfolding of future events is in my opinion much too large for him to be cashing in and spinning his side of the story in book form. He should have been absolutely private in his views unless called to testify in some venue. That really disturbs me, nothing is sacred to anyone, no dignity or decorum is left to us from the POTUS, Congress, former officials, its all for sale like a cheap whore on main street. (Not meaning to bring up libertarian views on legalized prostitution but I just will never accept that the president and the recent FBI director at the center of the storm are prostituting themselves shamelessly. Ugg, Ugg to it all.
My major point of departure from “Moderate” as TNMers tend to think of it. is that though I do not think the right has all of the answers or the left has all of the answers, I do think each side has SOME of the answers.
Sometimes the middle way – the way of compromise is the best answer.
But quite often one side or the other is either right or far closer to right than the other.
The problem with our parties is not that they are not right some of the time, but that they are not right all fo the time.
I share far more values with those on the left.
While I constantly defend the right of a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, I still think he is an ass and would boycott his store.
I agree with the left regarding how we should treat others.
I do not agree that we should make it law.
The right tends to be right on fiscal matters – probably because they steal their economics from libertarians. Though often they say the right things while doing something different.
Hence this budget disaster.
Well Grumpy, I was going to say I was going to be like Dave and comment that I think Trump is a moron based on his personal actions, but I agree with many of his political decisions. And to support that, I looked at the internet for information that would substantiate some of my comments, but the same problem exist there as exist everywhere in society today. I could either find a large number of articles about how bad actions by the Trump administration are for the environment, financial well being of the people or for the country at large. Then there are sites that praise the Trump administration for striking down hundreds of regulations, unleashing the power of the people and business to allow the natural economic forces to generate substantial growth and economic well being. On both issues, its all BS for the most part and the truth lies somewhere in the middle..
So when I say I think Trump is a moron and I would not want him at my family dinner, I would prefer the drunk uncle instead, I will say I accept the actions he has taken much more than I would like to see another Sotomayor or Hagan that Clinton would have put on SCOTUS or the massive regulations she would have imposed based on history of the Democrat party.
As for your question about people falling into one category or the other, Rasmussen reports “the latest (Presidential Polling )figures include 32% who Strongly Approve of the way the president is performing and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. So in my mind, I would say 27% of the people are smart enough to not buy the cool-aid sold by either side.
GHWB was a great man. I would absolutely agree.
But he was not a great president.
Trump is not a great man.
But he is atleast a good president and might be a great one.
Bill Clinton by all accounts is a worse person than Trump.
He was a very good president.
I really wish that decency, integrity, honesty were the critical measures that determined greatness.
I want to beleive that.
But the real world tells me that is not true.
Are you fucking kidding?
Jay, what he said was “We’re having very, very good discussions,” Trump said during a bilateral meeting with President Emmanuel Macron of France in the White House Cabinet Room. “Kim Jong Un was — he really has been very open. I think very honorable, from everything we’re seeing.”
Did he say he was honorable on anything but the current negotiations to talk? Good God, start listening to what he says in the context of how it fits into the discussion. Stop using Twitter and the twisted reports from individual with an agenda for your news.
Do you call someone a madman, maniac, psycho or anything else when you are trying to actually negotiate something positive. No, you play the game and pump up the other psycho to think he is being accepted as an equal. There is plenty of time for Trump to go back to “Little Rocket Man” when this breaks down.
Jimmy Carter recently wrote “Over more than 20 years, I have spent many hours in discussions with top North Korean officials and private citizens during visits to Pyongyang and to the countryside. I found Kim Il Sung (their “Great Leader”), Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly, and other leaders to be both completely rational and dedicated to the preservation of their regime.” Is this much different than Trumps comments about Un?
Most people that report on this issue say the odds of anything positive occurring is slight, even Carter says denuclearization will not happen, but this is a first in the history of two Korea’s to have both leaders actually planning to talk.
So ask yourself, if you were negotiating a peace treaty between the Hatfields and McCoys and there was progress to end that feud and then one or the other “called the other adirty rotten bastard”, what would happen to that feud?
And ask yourself also, if anyone but Trump said this, would you be having that cow now?
He is trying to get the guy to give up his nukes – and by all appearances just might succeed.
I do not care if he calls him mother Thereasa, if that is what it takes.
“I do not care if he calls him mother Thereasa, if that is what it takes.”
Yep, and that is what I tried explaining. I think Jay would vote for Crumbs Pelosi to get rid of Trump since he is so apoplectic about Trump being in office if she ran.
Do we have to keep playing this stupid game ?
Obama praising Putin
“I am aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people in your previous role as prime minis-, uh, as president, but in your current role as prime minister,”
Clinton praised Assad while building support to go after Ghadaffi
FDR said that Musollini was “admirable” and was “deeply impressed” by what he has “accomplished”.
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious,” adding that, “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary … Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois viewed the Nazi rise positively, saying that Hitler’s dictatorship had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937, DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
Humm…
“Even if there is a surge in turnout, a majority of America will not vote in November,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. “It’s a chilling story to tell. These people don’t vote. They could hate Trump, but they could still not vote because they hate political parties, they hate Democrats, they hate the bureaucracy, they hate the infighting, the negativity, all of that.”
When asked for the first word or phrase that came to mind when they heard the name Donald Trump, one in four respondents gave positive answers, including “favorable/like him” (9%) and “doing a good job/trying his best” (5%), while others were critical, calling him “idiot/jerk/ass” (11%) or “ignorant/moron/stupid/dumb” (6%).
Most respondents identified themselves as moderate (36%), followed by conservative (21%) and liberal (11%).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/23/poll-non-voters-dislike-donald-trump-isnt-likely-make-them-vote-2018/540709002/
I think I have called him both the 11% and the 6%, but I am still voting for anyone but the democrat.
If Trump runs again, you’re voting for him no matter the Democrat?
Not going to sit it out if Trump runs, no matter the Democrat?
My comment about voting was for 2018. North Carolina has no third party candidates on the Libertarian ticket for local and House seats to speak of. And the democrats are usually ones to appeal to the minorities, which are way too liberal.
2020 is a different animal. Most likely Libertarian, then I would have a hard time voting for a democrat since almost any democrat that will run is going to be way too liberal.
It is a good thing that most people do not vote.
Historically the higher the rate of voting the more unstable the government.
Low rates of voting mean that however voters feel – about the left, about the right about whatever – they do not feel strongly.
Government should be innocuous.
We would not care much if the government was made of the most evil people in the country – so long as they were powerless.
One of the important things your article points out – though not consciously is that values are not binary.
This is why markets are far better places for people to express their values than elections and government and regulation.
Whether the local restaurant offers escargot is a function of how many people will buy escargot at the price that restaurant offers and what other restaurants are offering.
All restaurants do not have escargot on the menu.
But voting is essentially Trinary.
Yes, no, or don’t vote – we do not have gradient means of expressing values that are not yes, no.
Nearly every program of the left gets broad support – until people are told that they will have to pay for it.
But that is precisely how we decide what we will do in our private lives.
Something is truly important when we are prepared to pay for it.
Government is the same – but the fact that we must pay for things is sufficiently well hidden that people make decisions withoug considering the costs.
Dave, Historically it may have been better when there was low turnout, but that was when there was not the extreme differences between parties. Blue dog democrats, Rockefeller republicans, etc made the legislative bodies much more centrist. Now that does not exist, so when there is a low turnout for one party or the other, we get stuck with very extreme political positions.
We do not need anymore PPACA’s or abortion laws. We need what I call constitutionalist that will limit infringement into rights.
The data on turnout is not just about the US – it is global data.
All countries with high voter turnout tend to be politically unstable.
Yes, it is because those countries tend to be polarized – that is what motivates large numbers to vote and that is BAD.
I know that the left and the media freak out about “right wing extremism”.
But I am sorry the modern american right has shifted dramatically to the center.
Or put differently both the right and left have shifted left – alot.
The shift of the right is very positive.
Social conservatism is dramatically reduced in power.
While we are still fighitng over abortion – we are fighting in a narrow window caused by the stupid reliance of Rowe Vs. Wade on science.
Viability is now almost to 20 weeks. that is where the right is fighting – and they actually have the majority of people supporting that.
The other fights of the right are almost entirely th consequence of left victories on minority rights.
We are not fighting over whether gay people can exist. We are not fighting over whether they can marry. we are fighting over whether religious bakers must bake them wedding cakes.
We are fighting over whether nuns can be forced to pay for abortificants.
A large number of the left right extreme conflicts are ones the left should LOSE.
I fought FOR the individual rights of gay people.
That does not mean I fought FOR their power to force others to do as they wish.
To be clear – respect is not a right – it is something people must earn.
The left keeps manufacturing fake rights all over. Calling something desireable a right does not make it one, and makes it less likely to occur.
I am with you most all the way on rights and forcing people to do something they do not wish to do.
that is the difference between someone that follows the right or lefts agenda. If more people understood what Libertarians stand for and Libertarians were not considered “pot heads” with their only agenda being legalized drugs, maybe more people would buy into that line of thinking.
There are few like Ron Paul that can be respected for his knowledge as well as his positions.
When you’re a dope, you’re a dope all the way:
“North Korea has agreed to suspend all Nuclear Tests and close up a major test site. This is very good news for North Korea and the World – big progress! Look forward to our Summit,” Trump tweeted earlier in April.
“A North Korean nuclear test site recently shuttered by Pyongyang is unusable and will cause a catastrophe if another test occurs, according to a new report.
Chinese scientists studying the damage at the Punggye-ri facility estimate that another test at the facility will lead to “environmental catastrophe,” The Wall Street Journal reports.
Scientists say North Korea’s most recent test caused a partial collapse of a cavity inside the mountain facility, which would be further exacerbated by another blast, the newspaper added.
“The occurrence of the collapse should deem the underground infrastructure beneath mountain Mantap not be used for any future nuclear tests,” reads an abstract for the study published by the University of Science and Technology of China, according to the Journal.”
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/384756-report-north-korea-nuclear-test-site-largely-unusable
North Korea ISN’T going to give-up it’s Nukes.
You have to be brain dead & deluded to believe that.
It’s a shell game. A Distraction from #TrumpRussia bought and paid for by Kim’s Russian allies. To give Dishonest Donnie some breathing room in the news cycle. So he can further dilute the Russian sanctions (like this: “Fortunately for Moscow, it now appears that the sanctions against Rusal Aluminum Company may never actually take effect. On Monday, the Treasury Department extended the sanctions’ “wind down” period — a window in which U.S. and foreign entities could complete their unfinished business with Rusal without facing any penalty — by six months, while expressing openness to lifting the sanctions entirely.”)
You have to be stupider than stupid to think anything’s going to come from this but posturing from both weasels.
“You have to be stupider than stupid to think anything’s going to come from this but posturing from both weasels.”
Depends on the posturing. Could be when talks collapse, then we further the sanctions. No one knows until it happens.
I just find it amazing how rabbit you are about anything Trump does, but where was this same outrage with fast and furious where our border guard lost life.
Ron, I wasn’t on this blog in 2010.
What makes you think I wasn’t critical of fast & furious?
And what does that have to do with NK talks?
And where were you on the Iran nuke deal?
I was against it… I believe Iran already had (and still has) nukes.
NK isn’t going to disarm or give up its nukes. They’re willing to ‘stop testing’ because they already have deliverable nukes.
We both were not here. in 2010. The investigation wax sometime after that.
What it has to do with NK talks is the same thing that many double standards have to do with Obama, Clinton and Trump. While issues with Obama and Clinton are passed over, Trump gets total attention.
I am against any deal where the friendly countries in the region are against them. Why should we agree to something 5000 mikes away when our allies in the region who have to live with the deal is against it. And then there is the money issues, etc.
As for NK giving up nucs, I doubt they will. So what happens next? Nothing or does the Trump administration use this to racket up more sanctions? One analyst interview replayed on our local station said one of the reasons this may be happening has something to do with banking and China not being able to gets funds to NK. NK does not have money to buy stuff to support the regime. They are only doing this to get sanctions stopped, much like all past negotiations.
So like being guilty before the trial begins, I will wait for the outcome, just like I am waiting and waiting and………. on the Mueller investigation before making a decision.
I opposed the Iran Nuke deal.
I do/did not oppose talking with Iran.
If there is some deal with NK – I will form an opoinion as I learn about that deal.
I am not at all opposed to talking.
Most of the sources I read beleive NK is substantially beyond what we are publicly acknowledging – but not quite where they claim to be.
It is near certain they have a 2nd Gen and possibly a 3rd Gen atomic bomb.
They do not have a hydrogen bomb. But they are close.
That is a very big deal as MOST of their tests are of Hiroshima Class weapons – and as bad as that sounds actual 2nd, 3rd and hyrdogen bombs are far worse.
They likely have the capability of developing an EMP weapon – that is also a big deal.
Targetting is a known problem for NK, an EMP weapon fired at high in the atmosphere in approximately the center of the country – not a hard targe to hit, would likely destroy nearly all electronics in about 1/2 the country.
That means no power, no cars, no water, no lights, nothing that has the slightest dependence on electronics.
While almost no one would be killed immediately millions would be at risk in the weeks and months after. There is no possibility of recovering from that much camage rapidly enough to avoid massive loss of life. Half of the US would be kicked back to the 17th century for months while we the undamaged parts of the country tried to rush to produce replacements for what was destroyed before people started dying. Further the rest of the world could essentially hold us for ransome. The prices of everything electronic would skyrocket for probably a year.
But it is likely that NK would require further testing to be able to sucessfully use and EMP weapon.
At the moment it is likely that NK can reach Guam. But the technology to go from Guam to NYC is not significant. But again likely would require testing they have not done – and that if they tried would almost certainly produce a response from us.
I would also note that NK has had nukes for probably 30 years. They are WAY ahead of Iran.
Iran probably has nukes. Iran has IRBM’s – not real ICBM’s They might be able to reach southern europe, they can reach israel. they are not reaching the US anytime soon.
NK is far ahead of Iran there.
But anything NK has – Iran will ultimately get.
Finally, I have no idea what is in our military budget expansion – but hopefully one of the things we are spending on is satelite based ICBM interceptors. It has been rumored for a long time that we have these and they are deployed already.
If not – we badly need these. We have two forms of ground based interceptors.
Both of these have small success windows. It is many many times easier to knock out an ICBM from space.
Put differenty we need to stall NK for a few years.
It will not matter what type of Weapon NK has – if we have the capability of reliably intercepting it.
We will never have the capacity to face a Russian First strike without massive losses.
But we can stay ahead of NK and Iran. Probably for about the cost of “they wall”.
“North Korea ISN’T going to give-up it’s Nukes.
You have to be brain dead & deluded to believe that.”
Probably not – there are still lots of reasons to talk.
I would not support a deal as bad as the Iran deal just because it was Trump’s rather than Irans.
Fundimenatlly my view is we need to stall NK testing for a couple of years to improve our ABM capabilities – particularly space based.
After that neither Iran nor NK pose much of a threat to anyone.
Instead of the MASD situation we have with Russia, we would end up with Launch and die without much chance of harming your target.
Still fixated on Russia I see.
Just wondering why Russia suddenly matters to you – even Clapper and Brennan testified that Russian “interferance” in 2016 was not different from 2012 or 2008.
You seem to have different rules for Trump.
Looks like it may not happen anyway. Appears we have an issue about as stupid as the shape of the table at the Vietnam peace talks. And this is between our allies.
https://nypost.com/2018/04/25/japan-livid-over-distasteful-dessert-at-north-korea-summit/
The USSR thoroughly Trashed the environment. No ideology has been worse for the environoment than socialism.
So why isn’t it a good thing that NK agreed to not do something stupid ?
You do not think that Kim Un is capable of wrecking the environment in pursuit of Nukes ?
Stalin had no problems doing so.
Again I will weigh in on an actual deal when there is an actual deal to weigh in on.
BTW I do not presume that Kim Un is unwilling to give up Nukes.
That might be true, but unlike Iran was actually have far more leverage with NK.
NK is a 3rd world nation just steps away from ICBM’s and Hbombs.
Iran is a bottom of the 1st world nation that does not have real ICBM’s and at best has primative nukes.
NK is seriously threatened and highly dependent on a China that sees NK as a massive liability today.
Purportedly talks are now going on to actually end the Korean war – it never really ended.
That is large.
NK purportedly wants US troops out of SK – in return for abandoning nukes.
There is only one real reason US troops are in SK.
That is to die int he even NK invades.
Whatever we promissed it is not certain the US would aide SK without american casualties.
But the moment NK kills a few americans the public will support war against NK.
Virtually all Korean War games are just sped up versions of the original Korean War.
NK advances rapidly – until US forces arrive en masse, and then the US drives NK to whatever point we decide will not provoke the chinese.
It is entirely possible that in the event of a new Korean War that NK will cease to exist – that it will end up being divided between SK and China.
STEELE DOSSIER UPDATE.
trump’s denial to Comey that he wasn’t in the Russian Hotel the night of the alleged Pee-Pee incident now contradicted by numerous sources, including flight records, hotel check out records, the beauty pageant director, his bodyguard.
Again you are confusing facts with hearsay.
Trump has repeatedly asserted that he did not say to Comey many of the things Comey says he said to Comey.
Given that Trump has not said the things Comey says he said to anyone else. Comey is not credible.
With respect to the facts:
The Steele Dossier is less specific about the details of the incident than you claim – the Steele Dossier is very rarely specific about anything that is actually possible to verify.
That said – it is known that Trump was in Russia for the paegent at time that was not completely inconsistent with the Steele Dossier claim regarding the Pee incident.
And absolutely that is confirmed by his bodygard – this is all very old news – this was all known at approximately this time last year.
As I recall Trump’s bodyguard confirmed that Some Russian Oligarch offered a room and prostituted to Trump – indirectly through the bodyguard, and the bodyguard declined – Trump was not even told about the offer. Further the offer was in a Different Hotel.
Actual verification requires more than generally consistent.
Need I remind you that Trump’s presence at the Paegent was Not Secret – you did not need to confirm it with any of the people you claim it was confirmed with. It was openly reported on the News. Trump has never claimed he was NOT at the Moscow Paegent. That would be lidicrously stupid.
Further you can not confirm the veracity of the Steele Dossier by confirming easily know publicly available facts.
Trump was in Russia for the Paegent in 2013. The Steele Dossier was not written until mid 2016.
If you want to confirm something from the Steele Dossier you have to have a verifiable fact that could not have been known by someone making up the story. A fact that is confirmable that would require knowledge that only an actual witness could have.
As an example if I claim Obama diddled kiddies in Kenya in the summer of 2015.
I can not then breathlessly link to a story in NYT that on July 22, 2015 Obama was in Kenya and say – “see Proof”
Again there is nothing in the Steele Dossier that has been “verified”.
That does not mean there is not a single fact that is actually true.
It means that none of the things that are true constitute knowledge that someone with access to the internet could not have put together after the fact.
When law enforcement says that a source is reliable that means that source has provided them information that is not generally known that has been tested and proven true.
It does not mean the source knows hot to read the newspaper.
“Trump has repeatedly asserted that he did not say to Comey many of the things Comey says he said to Comey.”
Show me where Trump specifically cited a particular falsehood.
Show me where Trump specifically cited a particular falsehood.
There are Plenty, but that is irrelevant.
Comey’s memo’s or testimony are hearsay – they are difficult to impossible to use as evidence.
Specifically for this reason. The burden is actually on Comey (and you) to prove what Comey says is true.
Nothing is true just because someone says it is .
I would also suggest watching many of the recent Comey interviews – he is not doing very well.
Comey was the top law enforcement person in the country – yet he does not know the difference between a leak and a felony.
This is quite odd as the Obama Administration FBI under Comey prosecuted leaks more agressively than all other presidents before combined.
Regardless, there are a wide variety of leaks that are crimes – just about any leak about an ongoing criminal investigation is a crime. Anything involving classified material is a crime.
Nor does the material need to be marked. As Comey notes he is an original source.
He tries to use that to claim that it was reasonable for him to beleive the items were not classified – because he decided they were not. When you are the origniator – the burden is the opposite – you are supposed to err on the side of classified. Further just about all exchanges with the president are presumed classified until determined otherwise.
So Comey has lied under oath about leaking – and as Trey Gowdy noted – James Comey is the only person in washington who thinks that providing his memo’s about conversations with the president regarding what Comey identifies as criminal and counter intelligence investigations is not leaking.
Comey seems to be incredibly ignorant – as well as stubborn about established facts.
He is convinced that the Freebeacon started the Steele Dossier. We know know – from testimony under oath before congress that Steele was not hired until the Clinton campaign started working with Fusion GPS.
Comey claims to still not know that the Dossier was paid for by Clinton.
Lets assume that he does nto know – that just means he committed a crime when he signed off on the Page warrants.
Regardless, it was his job to know. Again as Gowdy noted – prosecutors can and should start an investigation on an allegation. But they can not get a warrant without probable cause – and if you do not know that the information you are using was bought and paid for – then you are incompetent.
In May 2017 Comey testified that the Steele Dossier was salacious and unverified.
Again either he lied to congress or he lied to the FISA court.
When you request a warrant you must SWEAR that the information is reliable.
Unverified is not reliable.
Next Comey says that the Steele Dossier was only part of the warrant application, that other information had come in from the intelligence agencies and from the state department.
We now know the information from the state department was the Stuff from Downer, and the Shearer Dossier – which is Sidney Blumenthal’s version of the Steele Dossier that predates it.
Many of Steeles most salacious claims asctually come from the Shearer Dossier.
Regardless both the Downer and Shearer information were provided to the State department by Clinton surogates.
Gowdy has noted that the FISA application had 3 separate parts – the Steele Dossier being the first and largest. Unless Comey is lying in his interviews the other two are the Shearer Dossier and the Downer information on Papadoulis. That makes EVERYTHING used for the FISA application trace back to the Clinton Campaigh.
We also now know ABSOLUTELY that the Downer information did NOT come through intelligence channels. The FVEY committee has confirmed to congress that they NEVER had not passed on information regarding the Trump campaign and Russia – not the Papadoulis story not anything in the Steele Dossier.
That makes the only possible source of the allegations regarding Papadoulis the Clinton campaign’s channel through State.
Comey confirmed that some information came from State.
But he lied when he asserted some came from the IC.
Comey separately confirmed – presuming that he was telling the truth that the FBI did not open any investigation until July. That State might have had something earlier – but it did not reach FBI until July.
Comey was also playing bizarre games regarding the Clinton investigation.
He claimed to be unaware of any of McCabes misconduct – including that he was slow walking the Weiner investigation.
Comey claimed that Lynch was conflicted and could not make the Decisions regarding Clinton – but that she never authorized him to. And again completely ignored the actual law.
If DOJ is conflicted – a special prosecutor must be appointed.
There is no legal provision for the FBI director gets to make the final decision regarding prosecution. He explicitly stated that Lynch never authorized him to.
One can go on and on about Comey, but he has pretty much wrecked himself as a witness.
Any decent lawyer will have a field day tearing him apart.
And this is the person you trust ?
“There are Plenty, but that is irrelevant.“
Liar.
“There are Plenty, but that is irrelevant.“
Liar.
Whatever you can not show – just assert vaguely.
Then slather on the ad hominem.
You are actually worse than you claim Trump is.
Trump is actually dealing with a hostile press.
You are not dealijng with people who hate you.
Trump is responding – you are proposing.
I would further note – that when you argue from emotion rather than logic, the argument will always end up hostile whenever you encounter someone who disagrees.
That is automatic with appeals to emotion.
I know you claim not to be a leftist – but you parrot the arguments of the left, in the style of the left.
There is a reason that left regimes are responsible for such massive bloodshed.
Because when insult does nto work as a means of refuting an argument, the next step is violence. ‘
“Trump has repeatedly asserted that he did not say to Comey many of the things Comey says he said to Comey.
Given that Trump has not said the things Comey says he said to anyone else. Comey is not credible.”
Another prime example of your block headed dumbness.
Why would you take Trump’s word that he didn’t say anything?? A known LIAR like Trump? Just because he said it? Without any proof to back it up?
You’re a dumb bunny. With a head up your ass POV. SHOW ME THE QUOTE FROM trump where he denied he Told Comey he wasn’t in the hotel the night of the pee pee accusation. Monkey sees monkey nods. Pathetic.
“Another prime example of your block headed dumbness.
Why would you take Trump’s word that he didn’t say anything?? A known LIAR like Trump? Just because he said it? Without any proof to back it up?:”
I do not “take trumps word”. I expect that when YOU claim that Trump has said something AND that it is a lie, that YOU can prove what you are claiming.
Trump has tweeted like crazy. It should be trivial to find the tweet that proves what you claim.
“You’re a dumb bunny. With a head up your ass POV. SHOW ME THE QUOTE FROM trump where he denied he Told Comey he wasn’t in the hotel the night of the pee pee accusation. Monkey sees monkey nods. Pathetic.”
You do understand how convolutedly stupid your request is. ?
This works the other way – PROVE that Trump has said unequivocally that he was not in that hotel on that night ? The burden is on you – you are making the accusation.
Or it is on Comey if you are relying on him.
Just to be clear – you can not use hearsay to establish proof,
To the limited extent that you can use hearsay to discredit a witness – the purpose is to discredit the witness not to prove the truth of what was said.
In other words if What Comey says Trump said to him is admissible at all, it is admissible to prove that Trump lied, not to prove the event actually occurred.
Any you are going to have horrible problems with Comey as a witness.
To a very large extent his memo’s actually confirm Trump’s version of events.
There are very few discrepancies between what Trump has said in other contexts and what Comey says Trump said to him in private.
The glaring exception being that Comey says Trump said go easy on Flynn. I am pretty sure Trump is denying having said that.
I do not know who I beleive. Even if Comey is telling the truth about what Trump said, it is a reasonable communication and not obstruction. Even using the left’s bizzarre argument, it is not obstruction. Trump asked Comey to go easy on Flynn over an allegation that have nothing to do with Trump or the campaign. At that time Comey’s interest in Flynn – atleast so far as Trump knew was confined to his communications with Kislyak in early Jan. 2017.
Even presuming that Comey was engaged in a wider investigation of Flynn he did not tell Trump that. Trump can not obstruct something he does not know about.
More broadly Comey repeatedly – according to his own memo’s and testimoney told Trump that he was not investigating Trump – so again even by the left’s broad theory obstruction is not possible.
You have to take obstruction so broadly that no president can ever opine on what should happen in any investigation.
Given that Obama publicly stated Clinton committed no crime long before a decisions was made by DOJ or the FBI – that would be clear obstruction by that standard.
Further we have numerous historical instances where presidents have intervened in investigations – either to compel prosecution or to halt it.
More specifically we have GHWB pardoning a raft of people in an investigation that near certainly would have lead to him.
SCOTUS is addressing a permutation of this as it looks at Trump Travel Ban III.
It apears that a majority of justices – perhaps as many as 7 are not prepared to accept the argument that Trump may not do something that Obama or any other president could do.
An act is either wrong no matter who does it, or it is not wrong.
Never before in the history of the US has the President’s lawyer taken the 5th in a case involving the President. Keep defending scum and it rubs off on you.
This is a civil lawsuit brought by Stormy Daniels in her suit against Cohen and Trump. Cohen is also under investigation in a criminal matter.
So it they were to asked him a question and he answered that question, that answer could be used in the criminal charges that may be brought up against him.
If you hit someone with your car and they brought a civil suit against you, while at the same time the state was investigating that accident as potentially involuntary manslaughter, would you answer any question in the civil suit that could be used in the criminal court?
You might, but I have the right to remain silent and that is exactly what I would do and then I have the right to testify or not in my behalf at the trial.
Agree, RonP.
I agree. When you’re guilty of a crime it’s savvy to take the Fifth. As it is if your truthful answers will implicate the other party involved (Lying Donald).
The optics are unsavory for Trump, and by default the presidency. His long time personal lawyer has already been shown as an unsavory shyster, involved in payoffs to quash adulterous affairs. If it turns out he’s been involved in fraudulent business activities as well during his tenure as Trump Fixer In Chief (or better, reveals Trump’s involvement in those schemes) that further tarnishes the Presidency.
Unfortunately for Cohen, the civil matter isn’t Federal, and if criminal charges flow out of it, if convicted no pardon will be forth-coming.
You follow Ken Whites Tweets.
He has just unequivocally stated if you are a TARGET – you take the 5th.
PERIOD. Guilt has nothing to do with it.
“Unfortunately for Cohen, the civil matter isn’t Federal, and if criminal charges flow out of it, if convicted no pardon will be forth-coming.”
Assumes alot not in evidence..
It is irrelevant whether the civil matter is state or federal.
ALL that matters is whether any criminal charges that MIGHT arise from it – which is highly unlikely, are federal or not.
Daniels is suing to get the NDA tossed. Frankly the risk to her at the moment is greater than to Cohen. She has already breached and if she does not win Cohen could easily be awarded $2M in liquidated damages. Daniels claim that the agreement is not valid because Trump did not sign it is ludicrously stupid. The contract is between her and Cohen.
If I hire you to dance for a freinds bachelor party – the contract is between you and me.
You can not sue my friend, he can not sue you.
The fact that the performance of the contract requires Daniels to be silent about Trump does not make him a party.
Her stronger cases is the contract is badly written.
This is so laughable it is not even worth the trouble to respond.
The 5th is quite commonly taken int he political context.
Lehrner took it.
AG Holder just refused to testify – essentially the same thing and was held in contempt.
Typically when someone takes the 5th the LEFT and civil libertarains go to the trouble to explain what it actually means.
Among other things, it does not mean you committed a crime, it merely means you think you testimony might be construed as an admission to a crime.
Further typically when you take the fifth – you must take it with respect to EVERYTHING.
You can not testify even about things you do not think incriminate you
“SEATTLE (The Borowitz Report)—Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, announced on Tuesday that when the purported “pee tape” becomes available it will be offered free to all Amazon Prime members.”
Yay. I’m a Prime member!
(Watch Bosch -best cop drama series this decade)
I am a prime customer.
I have no qualms about Bezos going head to head with Trump.
I do not ever expect to see the mythical “pee tape”.
I like Bosch too.
Is he lying about lying about it Dave, you gullible twit?
“JUST IN: Trump admits Cohen represented him in Stormy Daniels deal after claiming he had no knowledge of it hill.cm/9VYkEPI”
To refresh your memory what kind of lying scumbag you keep defending, Dave, a few weeks ago Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he had “NO KNOWLEDGE” of Cohen’s work and payment to silence Stormy Daniels. And the White House flatly denied the affair.
We have a president and White House that systematically LIES to the people.
Do you not understand how FATAL that is to our democracy?
You can’t trust ANYTHING they say… unless you’re a FOOL. Or are you suggesting you have some special talent for distilling truth from lies from Trump?
First – though I continue to challenge both you and the press to actually make your case when you claim Trump lies – because the vast majority of the time you are wrong, at the same time no one is claiming Trump is perfectly accurate.
When refering to generalities – rather than specifics – where you must prove your claims,
Trumps credibility is about the same as that of the media attacking him.
There is a sight with a long list of Obama list – several thousand I beleive.
But most of us know the whoppers.
Lying and politicians go together.
Lying and the press are not supposed to. Yet clearly they do.
Lying and FBI director are not supposed to Yet clearly they do.
Regardless, I am getting really tired of this crap from you.
I have been incredibly patient – trying to carefully explain to you that the vast majority of your
“Trump lies” garbage are nothing close to clear lies. That you are holding Trump to a standard of precision and perfection in speach that you do not hold the press to, that you do not hold Comey to, that you do not hold Clinton to, and that you do not hold Obama to.
That is called Hypocracy – that is WORSE than what you accuse Trump of.
This country is not a democracy.
In the actual event that you ever manage to come up with a real lie of substance with respect to Trump, then the answer becomes – no that is not fatal to the country.
Do I have to list the long long list of very serious lies that presidents have told ?
Remember the Maine ? Remember the Golf of Tonkin ?
Remember the Assassination of Diem ? Remember I did not have sex with that woman ?
Remember If you like your doctor you can keep them ?
Remember Benghazi was a spontaneous protest over an internet video ?
Remember …..
If Trump has actually lied in every way you claimed – he has still not lied over anything of near the substance you are claiming.
Have we gone to war over a Trump lie ?
If you want to be upset about something – form what I understand the chemical attack in Syria was almost certainly “fake”. The story is not holding up as experts are looking into it further.
People died over that. The US military committed and act of war.
That kind of thing bothers me.
Not this Daniels garbage.
I think we are all agreed that Trump should shutup alot more.
So should Comey.
So should all of those who have so little life that all they can do is try to find small inconsistancies in Trump statements.
Get a life. It is what Trump DOES that matters.
“Or are you suggesting you have some special talent for distilling truth from lies from Trump?”
No what I am suggesting is that you, the media and the left do not have that special talent.
All apparent inconsistencies are not inconsistencies/
All inconsistancies are not lies.
All words spoken by anyone related to Trump are not Trump’s.
I have spent much of the past 5 years dealing with a collection of people who lie – alot.
I know what a real lie is.
I have one close relative that will never tell the truth if a good lie will work, who tells crazy lies – and is beleived – because no one would tell a lie that crazy.
I am dealing with another who shades everything, who tells “half truths” constantly.
And another who has a self righteous streak many times wider than mine, and does not have the brains to grasp that when you step onto a moral soapbox, you had better be damn sure you are right.
And that is just the family members – there is a small army of lawyers – several of which make Cohen look like a Einstein.
Anyway, so know what real lies – under oath in the real world are.
Please read the article you linked – it does not say what you think it says.
As Comey did point out with respect to a statement that Lynch made, and one that Comey made that appeared to conflict – it is actually possible for both statements to be True.
As an example Trump can BOTH not know the source of the money AND know it did not come from the campaign. As hard is ir may be for you to grasp that.
I would also note that “the Whitehouse says”, “Trumps lawyer says” and “Trump says” are not at all the same thing.
There is a reason that people have lawyers and press secretaries – to be able to deny or assert things and then walk back from them.
There is a reason people do not beleive lawyers and press secretaries.
Jay. if this is true, then this can be a big deal for anyone this attorney had dealings with including Trump. One has to wonder what treasure trove of information is included on those phones. Wait and see like all the other investigations that are taking to damn long and doing nothing but dividing this country further.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/stormy-daniels-apos-lawyer-michael-194609622.html
And how f’in stupid is it for an attorney to keep stuff like this lying around. I must be totally illiterate because I was told years ago to never put in writing anything you did not want discovered by anyone else years later. Now we have attorneys that think phone messages are going to be secure. Now when dealing with any attorney , the first question should be how the conversation will be documented and before anything is filed approval needs to be made so nothing that could come back to bite someone in the future is not there. And no phone messages at all!!!
Even the big wigs that did not deal with Cohen are probably calling their attorneys and asking what is on their phones, how far back does it go and what other incriminating business dealings could be discovered.
One thing for certain, our legal system is getting as screwed up as our healthcare system. And that not a good thing.
Ron;
We have had nearly two years of
“this latest thing that Trump said is the end of the world”
Trump often makes things more complicated for himself.
There is a real risk – that as Derschowitz notes that if you pressure someone enough they will make a stupid mistake.
Though I would note that works both ways and the evidence thus far is that the actually stupid mistakes are being made by the Argh!Trump crowd.
I would note that in the article Cited Judge Woods appointed a special master.
That is a slap int he face of the US ADA SDNYC.
They wanted just a taint team.
A special master means that Woods beleives there are serious issues of priviledge involved – that is a LOSS for the SDNYC which has been claiming this does not involve clients or priviledge.
I personally hate record keeping.
But I have had it drilled into me throughout my life – by my mother – dead more than a decade ago.
I only have verbal communications over matters of importance with people I trust strongly.
I conduct most of my business and anything with people I do not complete trust in writing – usually by email.
If I have screwed up somehow – then I should be held accountable.
Conversely if others have then I want the records to hold them accountable.
I would be very angry if some search warrant was serveed and all my computers were confiscated. – not because I do not want law enforcement to see what I have written.
But because I do not want them to be able to deprive me of the records I need to defend myself.
I would remind you that much of the hysteria regarding each new move by prosecutors or whoever, it primarily wishful thinking and ir never pans out.
A criminal investigation is dangerous even if you are innocent – as Flynn or Papadoulis or Van Der Zwaan.
But all this is dangerous for the left too.
If the left does not “get Trump” their credibility is shot.
“I only have verbal communications over matters of importance with people I trust strongly.
I conduct most of my business and anything with people I do not complete trust in writing – usually by email”
Maybe I left something out of my comment when I said putting things in writing. What I know I have said previously is “Do not put anything in writing that you do not want others to see that can come back to bite you years later!”
That is completely different than your putting things in writing with people you do not trust. What you are documenting is words you want seen in the future when needed.
I am not disagreeing with you on some issue of principle.
I have been advised repeatly by lawyers to keep less records, and put less in writing.
But I have been involved in way too much lititgation in my life – too much of business goes to litigation today.
In those instances both I am my lawyers have found that the thorough documentation buttressed our arguments and our story.
My personal view is to document everything – Even in friendly relations, because sometimes even friends disagree.
On very rare occasions that documentation has proven I was wrong – that my recollection was faulty. In those instances, I was able to graciously concede and move on without converting a conflict with a good relationship into a bad one. That is a good result. When you are wrong it is GOOD to discover that you are wrong – particularly from your own sources.
It is also humbling and makes one more careful in the future.
Like James Comey I have a very strong “self righteous” streak. I have learned that is a dangerous trait. It can be powerful and effective roaring like Moses come own from the mountains. But you can not be wrong – EVER. Regardless, of how I may come off. I try extremely hard not to jump onto a moral soap box if I am not absolutely certain of the ground I am standing on.
On occasion I have had to make serious allegations of misconduct by others. I have lost alot of sleep over it. I have double, and tripple checked. I have worried that I messed something.
If you make a serious allegation against someone else – you better be right. PERFECTLY right.
Again all that means document the crap out of everything.
I hate documenting. It is not part of my personality. I wish the world did not require it.
But it does, and I have found that extensive documentation makes conflicts go away, or resolves them quicker or less painfully, or improves the odds of the right outcome.
With respect to current events, this also effects my perceptions.
Most of the left is absolutely certain that if they can just stick their noses into everything, that they will ultimately find some great sin of Trumps.
There are alot of problems with that.
At the start, there is a presumption without evidence that those they do not like are guilty of something.
Even you make this assumption whenever we talk about regulation.
You presume that absent regulation that most people or atleast enough will behave badly that things will go to hell.
In the real world:
People make mistakes – regulation will not ever prevent that. Sometimes those mistakes result in harm. Again regulation changes nothing, and we have a perfectly good tort system to deal with that.
Some small portion fo people will lie cheat steal, whatever it takes to gain advantage.
Again that occurs with or without regulation, and with our without regulation we have the means to punish if not curb that.
What is important is that rgulation does not change anything.
It does not reduce the probability that people make mistakes.
It does not make bad people good.
But the vast majority of people are good – not bad.
But that is not the presumption of the left – nor even of you when you start arguing for regulation.
So back to Trump.
If you start with the presumption that Trump etc. have done nothing of consequence wrong,
then all further snooping is going to do it:
Expose more minor garbage,.
further discredit those attacking Trump
create a number of additional process crimes where someone who is fundimentally innocent gets caught in a mistake.
FifthSmipth
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xfrb34lyhle0ho/Response%20to%20Cohen%20Declaration.pdf?dl=0
You seem to beleive that because a lawyer has argued something you like that make it the law.
I would remind you there was a move to hold Lois Lehner in contempt because the read an opening statement and then took the fifth and refused to testify.
Contra the claims of the brief you cited the general caselaw on taking the fifth is that you can not do so selectively – on a case by case or question by question basis.
There are myriads of reasons for this. One of which is that once you testify to something – you can no long take the fifth regarding what you have testified to – or sometimes things related to what you have testified to.
You essentially end up with a mess where it requires hours of analysis to determine whether you can answer each question, and how to answer it. We do not allow that in court.
I would further note the Fifth amendment is not the right to not incriminate yourself.
It is the right to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself.
Even if you are innocent of any wrong doing – you can not be compelled to testify to things that might suggest wrong doing that you are innocent of.
I do not know all the details of this case, but my guess is that Cohen will get his stay.
It is the least harmful choice.
Daniels signed an NDA – the burden of proof is on her to demonstrate that it is invalid.
The harm to her from delay in being released is small, and even if the NDA is invalid, it can not be doubted that when agreement was reached and when she took the 130K there was an understanding that she not disclose.
While the potential Harm to Cohen is great.
I would note that Judge wood appointed a special master in NY.
That is what Cohen and Trump asked for.
That was opposed by SDNYC.
A taint team i the normal approach.
Wood approved the unusual approach.
The one that better protects rights from government intrusion.
The most important part of a special master, is that it means that the FBI/SDNYC are only going to see the information that is responsive to their warrant and not priviledged.
The special master is not going to be looking for new crimes or violations of priviledge. or reasons to expand the scope of what the FBI can see.
The warrant alleges specific crimes and asserts a search for specific evidence – that is likely all that FBI/SDNYC will see.
If Trump confessed to Cohen about killing Jimmy Hoffa and where he burried the body – the FBI will not see that.
Credit where credit is due
As with the Mueller investigation, I will wait and see just what this brings. Everything could blow up tomorrow. One thing I would not expect is a bad deal like the Iran nuc deal. So I will give credit when credit is due, not before. Just because SK and NK shake hands and play nice in the sand box means nothing.?
“As with the Mueller investigation, I will wait and see just what this brings. Everything could blow up tomorrow. ”
Everyone hopes for a good outcome. Judgement of the final result rests on that outcome.
But Trump deserves credit – which he will not mostly get, for the effort to bring Kim Un to negotiations. He is not SOLELY responsible, but he is substantially responsible.
The last administration to make any significant effort was Clinton and he failed.
I am critical of Clinton for that failure – but not for trying.
There is no evidence that Obama or Bush Tried.
I also give Obama credit for Trying with Iran.
Overall I think Iran is far less dangerous, they are significantly less advanced and as unstable as they are less unstable than NK.
I do not like the Iran deal.
I have been critical of Obama with respect to the deal. He still gets credit for the effort.
I may not like the NK deal.
I would further note regarding Korea that an awful lot of the resolution of this is a NK-SK thing.
The agreement to end the Korean War is a big deal. It may not seem to be one – but it is.
For a long time there was some discussion of a East Germany/West Germany resolution.
As with East Germany – that will only occur if NK completely fails.
But one of the impediments was that SK watched what happened with Germany and in the past did not want that. Ultimately German reunification has proved good for both east and west
but in the short run it wreaked havoc on west germany’s economy and standard of living.
Incorporating 10’s of millions of impoverished people suddenly into one of the most advanced first world countries was damaging and difficult.
SK would face the same thing – possibly on an even larger scale, the economic disparity is even greater, and the sizes of the countries are more equal.
It appears that SK better understands under Trump that the US, China, Japan want the issue of NK resolved. and ultimately that means an implicit commitment from SK to be the backstop if NK fails.
Regardless, SK has a large role in this and that role is more reluctant than is perceived.
“One thing I would not expect is a bad deal like the Iran nuc deal. ”
I DO expect a bad agreement, or no agreement. So far we won that they shut down a test site they had already destroyed. Its Not the nukes and their testing that are the issue now, its the delivery systems! I expect NK and lil Kim to come out of this meeting more dangerous than ever and more determined and in a better position to eventually swallow SK.
NK has been dying to have a formal meeting with the US forever, we have always refused for reasons that are above my paygrade to be able to sort out, but that has been the pillar of US foreign policy towards NK. Now NK has their nukes and their delivery system and is working on subs that can launch a nuke, has been flying missiles over Japan or that actually fall on Japanese territory and they will get their meeting. Time will tell if the new approach is genius or junk. I’m guessing junk, but like any sane person, I hope its genius, that it lowers the danger. If so, I will give trump his due.
It will take many years to see what the true impact of any agreement really is. But people will score the agreement immediately, from both predictable partisan sides, as if all the implications come to pass at the stroke of a pen. Any substantial formal agreement between the US, NK and SK Will mark a turning point, but only the future will know whether the turning point was positive. I will NOT read the news following any agreement to hear the talking heads tell me statements so full of the word “may” (This May be the beginning…) that they have no meaning at all. The talking heads won’t know the future and the analysis will be purely along partisan lines, the usual BS.
We all know already here that the conservative media will love any agreement, even if only a naive liberal could actually love it based on its details, because of the voting implications of convincing Americans that trump is a great negotiator, and the liberal media will hate it, even if by some miracle it is actually a positive agreement, in order to try to deny the trump any popularity increase and the GOP any voting momentum. With an election coming up I expect all of the media, right and left to go into a nuclear powered frenzy of spin following the meeting. Political Theater.
Somebody please describe to me what a Good outcome would look like, so we can hold whatever comes out of this up to that standard. NK disarms or scraps development of delivery systems and goes agrees to live peacefully and respect that SK is a separate country? Ha.
Ha, here is what my crystal ball sees: Lil Kim gets a huge boost in status, does nothing substantial or releases one foolish American adventurer who decided to go for a hike in NK, and machine guns a few relatives to celebrate the meeting.
I will be much more proud of the trump administration if they go to the meeting and come back with the statement that NK offered nothing worthwhile, so they signed nothing. But they still will have raised Lil Kim’s status by having the meeting face to face.
I have read precisely No news analysis to come up with my opinion, I have read not one single opinion piece. The above is my own opinion based on history pure and simple.
How Can I link to this on Twitter?
(You nailed it!)
I figure I should agree with you where I can.
I do not know what I expect. Though I do not expect that some miracle will occur and NK will never be a problem again.
I am completely shocked by what I am hearing – particularly from Kim Un. and wondering what he is smoking or whether he is a sociopathic liar trying to suck us all in to some global suicide trick.
I do not beleive what I hear.
I oppose – and continue to oppose the Iran deal.
But I do not oppose negotiating with Iran.
I do not oppose negotiating with NK.
I do think lobbing ICBM’s is less likely if we are talking.
I also think that NK is more dangerous to the US than Iran.
————–
While I do not think the outcome of this will be rainbows and butterflies, I do not actually think it can get worse.
There is only one way NK swallows SK.
That is if we let them.
That is highly unlikely.
NK has had the conventional cabability to repeat the start of the Korean war for decades.
Anything that turns hot likely has SK and US troops pushed back to Busan (Pusan from the Korean war), in a few weeks. But once US forces are mobilized everything reverses rapidly.
Without China ACTIVELY joining NK, US, SK, and JP as well as UK, AU, NZ forces will clear the airspace over the korean penisula of NK aircraft and nothing North Korean will be able to move on the ground.
That does not mean it will not be bloody. Low estimates for casuatlies dwarf anything we have seen since vietnam, and are likely far worse than that.
NK has 15,000 artilery peices in range of Soul. It will take a long time to take them all out.
The low estimate for soul casualties are 100K in the first few hours.
If VX gas is used – many more.
Millions of dead in a very short time are possible – even without going nuclear.
And if this goes nuclear everything goes to hell.
NK still loses.
The only scenario they win is using nukes to threaten the US etc, and forcing us to stay out of the conflict.
————-
The other huge deal is a NK collapes – even without war.
There would be a need for a massive rush of humanitiarian aide.
Both the US, SK, and China would be rushing in.
That effort could be unpredictable – aide and invasion look the same when APC’s are moving in.
It could easily turn into both a humanitarian crisis and a military conflict.
American military forces and Chinese military forces would be closer together than they have been since 1955.
That will be stressful.
Further China is not going to be tolerant of a US military presence on their border.
Aide or no Aide we will have to get out fast.
In much of the past 30 years SK has quietly been opposed to reunification.
NK is a thirdworld nation with nukes.
SK is near the top of the first world.
This would be far more disruptive to SK than the unification of Germany.
And West Germans paid a heavy price for reunification.
——
We do not know that much about what is going on in NK.
Off and on there has been frequent bouts of mass starvation.
It is probable that there have been some episodes with more than 1M dying of starvation.
That could be happening now.
China has taken a far far more agressive stance since Trump was elected.
I do not understand how, but Trump has practically made China his bitch.
The conflict in the South China sea has flipped – the US is running Military vessels through SCS as if it is our pond.
China has purportedly been strangling NK economically – and China is their only ally.
Most importantly China has purportedly completely locked down their access to hard currency.
That alone may well have completely choked their nuclear program.
NK is more advanced in technology than Iran, but they are actually far more isolated and more impoversihed.
While Iran was subject to sanctions – most to the world was cheating.
That is not the case with NK.
Further I think China knows that they need Kin Un reigned in.
China does not want the US military on its border.
It does not want a Nuclear NK either.
There is no good outcome of a military conflict involving NK or any form for China.
I agree with your assessment, Dave.
But I’m still betting Trump will find a way to screw things up worse.
“I agree with your assessment, Dave.
But I’m still betting Trump will find a way to screw things up worse.”
I do not know the answers.
One of the things that scares me is that those claiming that only Trump can pull this off may be right.
Because if that is true, what they are saying is that only a president who is willing to take us to the brink of nuclear war could succeed in negotiating with Kim Un.
While that does speak badly of Trump, it speaks worse of Kim and worse still of the world.
I would like to believe that we can move to peace without having to threaten nuclear war first.
But that may not be true.
Obama failed at this.
Maybe the time was not right.
Maybe Obama did not care enough.
Maybe It was just out of Obama’s abilities.
Or maybe it was outside of Obama’s nature.
Some comparisons are being made of Nixon going to china.
But this is differnet.
Nixon thawed the ice and possibly only Nixon could.
But I think we have reached this point because Trump and Kim Un went nose to nose and Kim Un blinked.
While I am glad that Kin Un blinked. I am not comforted that the only reason this may have come about is because Trump was not bluffing.
Good article. Most everyone is wondering what is happening with Kim like you comment.
I also was against the Iran deal, but most of what I found objectionable was known after the fact. One main issue was the immediate release of frozen assets which Iran promptly used to help fund the fighters in the region. And I have to wonder just how we manage covert activity that it was designed to prevent when it came to nucs.
As for China, could be they believe Trump a lose cannon who would do whatever it took to reunify Korea and that is the last thing they want, so they are convincing Kim its in their best interest to begin talking.
The confrontation between Kim Un and Trump scared the shit out of me.
Everything I read about NK said that the key problem is NOT that they are suicidal – they are not.
It is that they really are so isolated and delusional they actually believed they could win a nuclear contest.
So if you beleive that Kin Un was that deluded – Then Trump facing him down is both more impressive and Terrifying.
I can understand it when the left says – this is not how things should be done.
that is fine, but the problem is whatever it should be, this is how it is.
I was too young to remember thr Cuban Missle Crisis, but it was very similar in that it was a nose to nose confrontation to see who would blink.
While I think that Trump scares China a bit.
I do not think that is the major factor regarding China.
China is NOT NK. They are NOT Crazy. They play to win, but they are not going to war.
Not even a trade war. They have far too much to lose.
They are a modern first world country today, and they MUST continue to deliver rising standards of living to their people. This is not Mao’s china.
They will bully their neighbors, but they will not bully us – unless we let them.
I think that Obama was clueless at handling China, just as LBJ was clueless with respect to Vietnam.
Obama saw diplomacy as a social game. It is not. Ultimately it is about power.
Obama mostly acted multilaterally.
Trump goes to the partners he wants, says “this is what we are doing, join us or not”.
Obama never challenged China in the South China Sea.
Trump did from day one.
Not only did he, but he did so WHILE concurrently confronting NK.
In the first 6 months of Trump we had two Aegis Cruisers damaged – almost certainly as a result of getting more agressive with China in the South China Sea. Something Obama refused to do.
Think about this. Aegis is the system that would get the first shot/best at taking out NK missles
Trump’s agressive actions with China cost him TWO Aegis cruisers for 9-18 months.
In this Trump reminds me of Churchill – who on becoming prime minister went on the OFFENSIVE against Hitler. Churchill was constantly gambling British resources against making life as difficult as possible for Hitler.
Everyone is atleast loosely familiar with the Battle for Britain.
But less know than the air battle, was that Churchill gambled that the airforce and navy could protect england and stripped britain of its military to send to fight Germany elsewhere.
Churchills strategy was to fight the air battle to a draw, and use the Royal Navy to destroy Hirlers forces crossing the channel.
Had the RAF lost the air battle, the Navy could not have safely entered the channel and the germans would have faced no opposition in england.
Regardless the Chinese are no match for Trump.
they need us more than we need them and Trump knows it and the Chinese know it,
and Trump is not affraid to push on that.
.
I do not think China cares about a re-unified Korea – so long as the US does not have forces in the north.
My guess for a deal:
The Korean war is formally ended.
NK agrees to some form of denuclarization.
NK and SK significantly reduce their conventional threat to each other.
Long term negotiations for some kind of unification occur.
And the US military leaves SK.
The US would likely be happy with that China would be happy with that,
SK would be happy with that
Japan would be happy with that.
The question is whether NK will agree, and whether they will live up to an agreement.
So we shall see how good my xtal ball is
“How Can I link to this on Twitter?
(You nailed it!)”
I don’t know from twitter, not my world.
But I looked up the meeting on Wikipedia, mostly because I wanted to know When it is going to happen and the info there on the meeting was actually interesting. One the face of it, NK claims to be willing to remove its nukes based on 5 conditions, and the conditions themselves are not on their face absurd.
“On April 11, in a recent North Korea-USA contact, North Korea presented the five entreaties on Trump-Kim summit talks as a condition for the dismissal of the North Korean ICBM nuclear weapons. (1) Ensuring the US and South Korea not locate nuclear weapons strategic assets within the vicinity of the Korean Peninsula[37] (2) Ceasing development or operation of nuclear strategic assets during USFK–ROK combined military training (3) Ensuring the USA will not attack North Korea with conventional weapon or nuclear weapons (4) Converting the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement into a peace treaty on Korean peninsula (5) Official Diplomatic ties between North Korea and the United States. Although, in general, North Korea had expected to request the withdrawal of United States Forces Korea (USFK) from South Korea in the past, North Korea publicized they would embrace the continuous deployment of 25,000 USFK in South Korea as long as the security of North Korea is guaranteed.[38]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_summit
So, In theory something major Could actually happen. Of course I hope it does. But I doubt it, cynic that I am.
In such meetings, all of the major details are supposed to have been settled first and Then the meeting takes place. So, if the trump team actually follows that process, then holding the meeting at all would indicate that they have something to sign.
If so, I will give the devil is due.
I would not presume that the process is the same for Trump.
I would also note that strange things happen.
Reagan and Gorbachev went for a walk on their own at Resevejick and very nearly agreed to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction.
When they returned and started to try to work towards what they had discussed their staffs freaked. No one had come prepared for anything like that.
The big deal fell through – primarily because no one but Reagan and Gorbachov were ready to act.
Beyond that:
We should all hope and pray for a good outcome, and prepare for much less.
I think Trump deserves enormous credit for getting to this point.
But I am not with the right pundits who are already handing out nobel peace prizes and dancing to celebrate a deal that is somehow in their heads already done.
Interesting read. And about 3/4ths down the page, another article showing costs for this therapy and how government is way behind on technology.
The moral question. Do you make your money on a few therapies and cure the patient, or do you make drugs to treat the symptoms and keep them sick.
https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/car-t-and-other-gene-therapies-may-not-be-sustainable-businesses-for-pharma-analyst
The savior drug they need is the one that keeps us alive indefinitely, as long as we take the med once a week, indefinitely.
“The moral question. Do you make your money on a few therapies and cure the patient, or do you make drugs to treat the symptoms and keep them sick.”
Absent government interferance it does not matter.
You do not seem to understand that the natural working of the market rooted in human behavior and incentives will always drive cost down and value up.
So long as the market is free – no participants may use force, and govenrment is not using force except to preclude force, if 10 big companies choose the revenue optimizing maximum, and a cost/value optimizing maximum exists someone will do it.
You do not need Pharma to operate “morally” – though I would suggest considering that this is NOT a moral question – there is no moral obligation to pursue the greatest good.
The greatest good is not even inherently knowable.
Regardless, all you need is freedom so that people can look at what IS and say – I think there is a better way. A better way always means a way that delivers more value for less cost – that is the way you think is more moral.
With respect to Genetic therapies, anyone can buy the tools to start experimenting with CRISPER, for about $150. There are quite litterally people engaged in genetic experiments in their garages. Currently these are explicitly targeting animals – because the FDA tightly regulates experiments on humans. But most of us do not have serious ethical problems with a pet owner experimenting to cure cancer in their dog. And many efforts that work will also work for humans.
Further USDA (where FDA is situated) has redefined genetic manipulation removing alot of it from regulatory review.
Good News!
Even more Republican Campaign funds making Trump-Related lawyers wealthier.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-paid-portions-michael-cohens-legal-fees/story?id=54831269
And MORE Trump $$$$ Heading to his lawyer’s pockets!
STORMY SUES TRUMPY FOR DEFAMATION
“WASHINGTON (AP) — The porn actress alleging a sexual encounter with President Donald Trump is escalating her legal fight, suing the president for defamation.
Stormy Daniels filed the complaint in federal court in New York on Monday. At issue is a tweet Trump made in which he dismissed a composite sketch that Daniels says depicted a man who threatened her in 2011 to stay quiet about her alleged relationship with Trump.
In the tweet earlier in April, Trump said: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”
The filing says the tweet was “false and defamatory,” arguing that Trump was speaking about Daniels and that he “knew that his false, disparaging statement would be read by people around the world, as well as widely reported.” It also says Daniels has been “exposed to death threats and other threats of physical violence.”
I do not think the Trump statement that Daniels is suing over constitutes defamation.
It is a characterization of the lawsuit, not the person.
Next, I think Daniels was arguabley a public figure before and has certainly made herself one.
Further Defamation requires harm. Danuels is proffiting from this.
All that said – far as I am concerned – she should go for it.
This has blasted new life into her career.
Aparently she is doing strip shows again and getting $45 for each attendee, and $20 for each picture and …
More power too her. She should cash in.
Interestingly most of those coming to see her are Trump supporters – often with MAGA hats and all are getting along fine.
Lets see there is $84M is improper contributions to the Clinton campaign and your fixating on this ?
Did you read the article ? This is in 2017 and 2018.
In 2016 Clinton paid millions to Perkins Coi – for the Steele Dossier – is that a valide campaign related expense ?
Just a quick update ~ Rick is still having trouble getting into his WordPress account. But the good news is that he has not abandoned the site, so, at some point, he’ll be back with a new column. He did say that he has been enjoying his respite from writing about politics, though.
So, the host of TNM will be back 🙂 In the meantime, carry on.
TRUMP’S DOCTOR’S OFFICE RAIDED
They made him take down the photo too?
Is that intimidation or what!
🤯🤫🤐
“According to Bornstein, the men took the original and only copy of Trump’s medical charts, including lab reports filed under Trump’s name, as well as pseudonyms. Bornstein said the men also demanded he take down a photo of himself and Trump that was hanging in the office waiting room.
Bornstein said that during the incident he never received a HIPAA release form signed by the president, which would have authorized the release of his medical records. Without one, the incident could constitute as a violation of patient privacy law. One source told NBC Bornstein did receive a letter from then-White House doctor Ronny Jackson, though it was unclear if a release form was attached to it.”
Is it standard practice to use your real name AND aliases as well?
Yes, I know- why did the Doctor go along with the deception in the first place?
But don’t you agree that trump is a slime bag lying mother-#7+’et- to deceive the American people about his health?
“Breaking: President Trump dictated 2015 letter his doctor wrote declaring him the “healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency” says letter’s author Dr. Harold Bornstein. “He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Bornstein told CNN’s @MarquardtA”
Again, we have someone with an ethical and legal obligation to confidentiality, talking to the press.
He was free to not sign the letter.
He was not free to talk about it without permission.
I have needed letters from my doctor and “dictated” what they must say.
My doctor then told me whether he would sign that or not.
This is not unusual.
When I adopted my daughter from China I was subject to a lot of requirements from China where documents had to be exactly as they wanted.
I was required to provide a CPA certified financial statement that was technically improper according to the rules for CPA’s. My Accountant contacted his professional organization and they said this was normal for China and he signed it.
As a professional you make the choice what you will or will not do for your client.
But you are bound by confidentiality regardless.
So why are you only focusing on the Doctor, and not Trump intentionally deceiving the people with a cotton candy physical evaluation?
The tone of the interview suggests he was ORDERED to take down the picture. By what legal authority did they demand that?
What about the alias? Is that meant to hide certain medical facts from scrutiny? If so, why some but not all his medical records under pseudonyms ?
“So why are you only focusing on the Doctor, and not Trump intentionally deceiving the people with a cotton candy physical evaluation?”
As Joe Friday would say – “Just the facts”
No adjectives, no mind reading.
This doctor voluntarily signed a physical evaluation of Trump that absent spin said he was in good health for his age and had no serious health problems.
Trump has been subsequently evaluated by military doctors who have said the same thing.
No one was lied to.
The doctor was not obligated to provide the evaluation.
He signed the evaluation.
If there were errors on that evaluation, that would be an ethics violation and possibly a crime.
The doctor provided information about Trump’s medical history to the press without permission.
That is an ethics violation and a possible crime.
People – purportedly from Trump provided a written demand from Trump for the return of his records. There is no law that says you can only have what is yours if you request in on Form 535B in 5 parts. The doctor voluntarily returned Trump’s record.
A picture in the doctors office purportedly on the wall before, was subsequently on the desk.
The office belongs to the doctor. He is free to hang picture up or not as he pleases.
Throughout this no one has claimed that an actual law was violated.
That any threat – beyond a threat to have actual law enforced was made.
No actual force has been alleged,
No actual rights were violated.
The only potential violations of the law or ethics would be those of the doctor.
You seem to think that the addition of adjectives changes facts. It does not.
“The tone of the interview suggests he was ORDERED to take down the picture.”
Tone is not a fact. If the Doctor was threatened – that might be a crime – has he alleged an actual threat ? regardless you can not be ordered to take down a picture in your own office.
“By what legal authority did they demand that?”
None, there is no actual evidence that any oder was given.
If the Doctor was threatened he should file a police report.
“What about the alias? Is that meant to hide certain medical facts from scrutiny? If so, why some but not all his medical records under pseudonyms ?”
We do celebrities conceal their identities ?
You constantly spin, fixating on adjectives and speculation.
Stick to the facts, you are less likely to be deceived.
All we have here is an unethical doctor.
That Trump chose him MIGHT reflect badly on Trump’s judgement, but to get there you would have to let go of your “Doctor as hero” meme.
I beleive he took down the photo according to the article.
Further he provided information to the media regarding his care of a patient.
He should feel lucky he still has a medical license.
He wants a Hippa release – did he have one when he talked to the press ?
Sorry, this guy asked for trouble, and he got it.
Isn’t this true?
The major hit to Clinton came when she stumbled and had to be drug to the Van.
With respect to the statement from Trump’s doctor – he signed it.
It is is not True – atleast in the medical sense absent the hyperbolee – then the Doctor has an ethical problem.
But we already know that.
If a product is sold to you under false claims, Amazon let’s you return it, full refund, no other questions asked.
So Trump promised to release his tax returns and didn’t, and he released a false medical assessment while running for president.
Shouldn’t we be able to return him to oblivion?
Did you vote for him ?
If not, then you did not buy him, and you have no right of return, atleast not by your argument
Trump did not promise you anything. He promised his voters something.
Further promises are not binding – contracts are.
A contract is a mutual promise
If you do X I will do Y
If Trump got nothing from you, you have no claim against him.
You need to widen your perspective.
Look at the election like a collective purchase.
The membership of a club wants to hire (buy) a new CEO.
There are two candidates for the position. It’s a high paying job.
Both present their accomplishments and qualifications.
A vote is taken, and one candidate squeaks past the other and is hired.
Subsequently, however, it turns out that candidate misrepresented his qualifications and bloated his accomplishments.
Are you saying those who didn’t vote for him can’t demand his removal?
“You need to widen your perspective.
Look at the election like a collective purchase.”
There is no such thing.
“The membership of a club wants to hire (buy) a new CEO.”
We are not members of a voluntary organization.
“There are two candidates for the position. It’s a high paying job.
Both present their accomplishments and qualifications.
A vote is taken, and one candidate squeaks past the other and is hired.
Subsequently, however, it turns out that candidate misrepresented his qualifications and bloated his accomplishments.”
Again the only people “deceived” are those who voted for him.
“Are you saying those who didn’t vote for him can’t demand his removal?”
Yes.
If the organization is truly volunatary – you are free to leave it. That is the actual remedy you are entitled to.
Beyond that the organization can hold new elections – in conformance to its bylaws.
In the case of the country – that is in 2020.
What you do not get to do is make things up as you go along.
Your distaste for the outcome is not a “cause of action”.
If you beleive Trump has done something impeachable – impeach him.
That is your only remedy until 2020.
Quit trying to game the system.
Great minds think alike.
Turley’s column mirrors what I have said – with some additional facts that make the doctor look even worse and Trump even better.
But we both agree on one thing.
The actual harm to Trump, is that Borenstein was his choice of doctor.
I agree the Doctor is a slimebucket.
I criticized him as a phony when his released medical account of Trump grotesquely fudged his weight and height.
But of the two, who’s the greater danger to the nation?
A Sappy Sawbones?
Or a Lying Irrational Idiotic Unqualified Nitwit President?
Whose staff Conspired with Russia to defeat his opponent?
Who Obstructed Justice to obscure their involvement?
Whose presence demeans the office and the nation hourly?
Take your time. Weigh the two individuals. Think hard!
Who’s is the worse slimebucket?
Who is the better person is not the question.
And the fact that you ask that all the time demonstrates the problem.
It is who is in the current dispute following the rules.
Military physicians have confirmed that Trump is in good health.
The only problem with Bornstein’s letter purporterly dictated by Trump is it is overloaded with adjectives. That does not alter the facts.
I know that constantly causes problems for you but no amount of adjectives changes the facts.
In the event Bornstein lied on the letter – that would be his ethical problem.
Bornstein revealed the presidents medication to the press.
That is a major ethics issue. Possible a criminal one.
Trump sent people to retreive his records.
A legitimate action – even if Trump was evil.
So this whole saga is about an unethical doctor.
The part that reflect badly on Trump is that he had an unethical doctor.
That is all.
All the rest of your personal comparisons are irrelevant.
You do not get 1 free murder – if the person you kill is worse than you.
I did what I can do legitimately and weighed their actions – and Bornstein came up short.
Even god does not judge using your criteria.
In this instance Bornstein acted unethically and possibly illegally.
Trump’s error was having an unethical physician.
the Mueller Questions under sharp scrutiny.
https://lawfareblog.com/what-can-we-say-about-muellers-49-questions
Both the media and you are concurrently running the contradictory claims that:
The questions are accurate and from Mueller,
Inaccurate and from Trump,
or various combinations of the above,
and that despite not knowing where they came from they constitute obstruction of justice.
It would be nice if you could get your story straight.
Lets try some facts.
The government has an ethical and legal obligation to remain silent about ongoing investigations – because speaking is a violation of the rights of those being investigated.
There is no obligation for witnesses, 3rd parties, targets or subjects to keep silent.
SOMETIMES courts ORDER attorney’s to keep silent during proceedings, they can not before proceedings, and ONLY attorney’s are subject to the direction of the courts.
ANY leaks by Mueller are an ethics violation and possibly a crime.
Because most purported Mueller leaks have been inaccurate – we do not actually know if Mueller has leaked. We do know that alot of half truths about the investigation have made the press.
A third party NOT part of the investigation is free to talk to the press or anyone else.
It is not a leak to speculate, and the press calling someone a source does not make what they say a leak.
Trump, his lawyers, witnesses, other subjects, targets, those pleading, those indicted, …
are all free to speak or keep silent as they choose.
Obama told the media early in the Clinton investigation that she was reckless but had committed no crime.
That was unethical. It was not illegal, it was not obstruction.
“
May 2, 2018 11:28 am
Both the media and you are concurrently running the contradictory claims that:”
That what?
There are contradictory claims?
Aren’t there contradictory claims?
What the hell are you babbling about?
Did you read the link?
Did it confuse you?
We’re you blinded by the writer’s brilliance?
We’re you stupefied by the elegance of his writing?
You do understand your brain lacks some requisite balancing mechanism to keep perspective on these issues?
Maybe alter your diet.
Are you a Veggie by day, but sneaking those Cheeseburgers on the side?
Can you read ?
Never mind. I know better,. You do not read anything that contradicts your delusions.
My point – which applies to much of this mess.
Is you can not have things both ways.
You can not have the questions be fake and real concurrently.
I provide the best analysis thus far.
From former US ADA McCarthy – if these are real – they damn Mueller – not Trump.
This is over. Mueller should not be allowed to ask those questions of anyone – without actually asserting a crime first, and it is quite obvious from the questions – he does not have a crime, and the questions are a fishing expedition in the hopes of manufacturing one from this ludicrously stupid – legal act + bad intent = crime garbage.
I am strongly suspicious that the questions did not come from Mueller.
Primarily because Trump need not answer most of them and would not be advised by any lawyer to do so.
You can asked someone about facts – what they said or what they did.
There are about a bazillion reasons why you can not get Trump to testify to what others said.
Both sides of conversations with the president as president are priviledged.
Questions regarding Trump’s thoughts or intentions, are not going to get asked,
You can seek to demonstrate intentions through actions only.
There are an infinite number of possibilities here. Pretty much none of which lead to, these are the actual questions Mueller expected to ask.
These questions are part of someone’s extra legal strategy – either Trump’s lawyers, or Muellers, or some third party.
But the only “crime” that they could represent – is if they came from Mueller.
interesting questions. Not sure what the majority of them have to do with collusion. A couple at the end could. Most look like obstruction leading questions. Either he answers here or probably get subpoenaed. Seems like lawyers could prepare him to answer in vanilla ways to avoid any charges from his answers. ,Answer here and non followup quetions. Subpoena and grand jury can ask anything.
These look more like gotcha than anything substantial.
Most of the questions are not getting answered – and probably will not get asked.
Everyone seems to think you can compel someone to testify and make them answer anything you wish to ask. You can not.
OK I will admit I dont know our justice system well. I thought in a trial you had two alternatives if you were the one charged. Testify to whatever the court ask you if not objected to or dont testify at all. If called as a witness, testify to the truth or take the 5th.
So explain what is different in a grand jury summons?
A witness must do as you ask.
But the law has rules for what questions can be asked.
The purpose of Testimony is to elicit relevant facts – there are only rare condictions under which thoughts, oppinions, or what someone else said is admissible.
From what I have looked at most of these questions will not get past objections.
Of course different judges are differing – but error on what testimony is permitted is an error of law, it is subject to appeal and rigorously scrutinized.
Most of us do not understand – you are not entitled in court to have the facts accurately represented. Fact based appeals have the lowest possibility of succeeding.
I beleive Scalia once said – it does not matter if the appeals attorney proves with absolute certainty their client is innocent. All the courts do is verify that the legal process was strictly followed.
The issue with the grand jury is the target of the investigation is not represented by an attorney in the room. If a question is made, the witness can ask to consult the attorney to see how to answer. The grand jury members can asked their own questions, so no one knows what they will ask as long as it is associated with the investigation. Having the “,Mueller” question, they know what is being asked and can prepare. Can you prepare for evefy possible GJ question?
Dowd purportedly left because he did not want and sees no reason for Trump to testify in any form, and Trump purportedly wants to testify.
I think McCarthy makes an excellent case that Mueller has no basis to insist on Trump’s testimony.
Tribe, a very left constitutional lawyer I used to respect who now makes the most extreme case thinks that the courts will force Trump to testify.
I think the past precidents do not work.
As McCarthy notes – there is no crime alleged.
Prior presidential subpeona’s are for documents.
I beleive that Clinton is the only president ever to testify.
I beleive he volunteered for the GJ – regardless, Starr had him on perjury.
Mueller has no crime. Trump is a subject not a target.
There is no reason for Trump to testify, and he should not.
Grand Juries are weird, they are supposed to follow the same rules, but you can not take a lawyer into a grand jury. At the same time. I am not sure what the prosecutor can do if you refuse to answer – there is no judge either.
The prosecutor can get away with asking whatever he wants and the witness can not answer.
Ron, this will help put Grand Jury Testimony in perspective
https://www.bostondefenselaw.com/blog/2015/09/i-received-a-subpoena-to-appear-before-a-grand-jury-i-dont-want-to-testify-do-i-have-to-go-cant-i-just-plead-the-5th/
Thanks, but this is different from Trump being summoned to court. This is “You have zero interest in testifying; you are fearful of retaliation, worried of looking like a snitch, and you just don’t want to get involved.” That means the example is not a person of interest, but a witness.
Trump is the person of interest. If he pleads the fifth, the media will jump all over that like smell on cat poop. If he testifies and the GJ can ask anything of interest to them related to the investigation, they can lead Trumps ego right into a huge “lying under oath” or some other trap that can further Muellers investigation.
If he answers the 49 questions after hours of prep and there are no followup questions, is he not in a better position?
As McCarthy noted – if the 49 questions are what is left of Mueller’s investigation of Trump – it is over.
There is not one he should answer, and not one he has to answer.
There is not one that even alleges a crime.
Wrong perspective.
Most of us do not have the resources or the basis to challenge a GJ subpeona.
To be compelled to testify ANYWHERE,
Whoever is calling you must demonstrate that you have testimony that you can provide.
For a grand jury – it must be testimony about a crime.
Mueller would have to identify an actual crime that Trump has knowledge of to get anywhere with a court. I do not think he can meet that bar.
But McCarthy is calling on Rosenstein to do his job and Tell Mueller NO! – then this does not even go to a court.
Further unlike ordinary people – where a priviledge applies – and the executive priviledge is the strongest their is, Mueller has to demonstrate that what he wants from trump is necescary and can not be gotten from anyone else.
Most if not all of Mueller’s questions involve Why trump did something.
That is the end of the discussion.
That means Mueller is buying this ludicrous legal theory that a legal act is a crime if you have bad intent. It might take SCOTUS to end that – but I doubt it.
But that theory is DOA.
And democrats would be extremely unwise to push it.
If the left won – it would unleash hell. Sessions could prosecute Obama for obstruction.
Do you think that Republicans would not immediately adopt that theory if the courts were stupid enough to bless it ?
“Trump is the person of interest. If he pleads the fifth, the media will jump all over that like smell on cat poop. “
Can you imagine a time in your life where you’d believe a president of the US would take the 5th without universal condemnation?
“Can you imagine a time in your life where you’d believe a president of the US would take the 5th without universal condemnation? ”
No but I can not recall a time in my lifetime that a president has faced the “guilty of whatever the liberals make up” agenda that is driven by the hate they have for Trump and our electoral system.. Even Nixon and Clinton did not face the driven agenda of one political position or the other like Trump.
So no other president would have to face the possibility of a GJ subpoena.
You mention many times the damage Trump is doing. But I believe the lasting damage will not be Trumps policies or his reputation, I believe that this will only be the beginning of character assassinations in the future and they will only get worse, the most qualified will never mention running for that office and future political parties will be even more divided, thus alienating the 45% in the middle who will just not vote.
Clinton testified – I beleive voluntarily.
BUT, he had committed perjury the courts would have compelled him.
Yes, something everyone should consider is this is the new normal.
The left may think they own the federal government so this can not happen to them.
But many on the left celebrated when Cohen was searched – because if they find a state crime Trump can not pardon himself or anyone else.
They should consider there are something like 35 Republican AG’s.
Oh please. Take your head out of your butt.
Trump is a defective president. And a defective human.
He is the one responsible for the legal scrutiny. Through his unscrupulous behavior.
This is what happens in a democracy when a candidate is not only unqualified for 5he position, but morally unfit for the office as well.
The system responds as the body responds to poisonous infiltration.
Trump is a thief, a liar, a collaborator with the Russian government and the Russian Mob. The arbiter of treasonous behavior has always been government watchdogs like the CIA and FBI. who have always been of a conservative nature.
It’s their job to protect the body politic from invidious invasion.
Trump is cancer; the investigative agencies are antibodies.
“Oh please. Take your head out of your butt.
Trump is a defective president. And a defective human.
He is the one responsible for the legal scrutiny. Through his unscrupulous behavior.
This is what happens in a democracy when a candidate is not only unqualified for 5he position, but morally unfit for the office as well.
The system responds as the body responds to poisonous infiltration.
Trump is a thief, a liar, a collaborator with the Russian government and the Russian Mob. The arbiter of treasonous behavior has always been government watchdogs like the CIA and FBI. who have always been of a conservative nature.
It’s their job to protect the body politic from invidious invasion.
Trump is cancer; the investigative agencies are antibodies.”
You aptly demonstrate exactly what is wrong
Trump was elected – that is the process for passing judgement on the presidents qualifications.
Beyond that – you are entitled to try to impeach him.
You are not entitled to manufacture fake crimes.
I would note that it is not merely Trump who you are in danger of losing here.
It is all these other indictiments etc.
It is increasing clear that there was no basis for this investigation from the start.
That it has been criminally politically corrupt from day one.
That those involved have manipulated the system to escalate an investigation that has no basis.
Trump is a defective human being – sure, so are you.
Trump is responsible for his legal scrutiny ?
Why ? Thus far the only ludicrously stupid allegation against Trump you have is a bogus charge of obstructing an investigation that he should have just BLUNTLY pulled the plug on.
That was corrupt from the start.
You toss adjectives like ‘unscrupulous” – You do not appear to have any scrupples to me.
Clinton clearly doesn’t, neither does Comey, McCabe or Lynch, or Brannan, or Clapper or ….
Regardless, that is not the standard for a criminal investigation.
Trump was born in the US is over 40, and can fog glass. Those ate the qualifications for president.
Everything else is up to the voters – and they decided.
The same with moral fitness.
Frankly Trump is more Moral than either of the Clinton’s and more “scrupulous.
No this is not how the system responds.
Any investigation of the president must be conducted by congress.
What we have is cancer – and the cancer is not Trump.
Can I imagine – yes – I imagined it with Clinton.
Instead he lied.
Trump is not taking the 5th unless his lawyers gag and chain him.
Trump has alot of experience testifying.
I still think it would be a huge mistake for him to testify.
I do not think he is going to.
But I think he badly wants to.
Dowd purportedly left because he does not beleie Trump should or has to testify.
McCarthy made an excellent case as to why it is very stupid idea – not just for Trump but for the presidency as a whole.
purportedly Guiliani is negotiating now.
My guess is that he gets what he wants.
Mueller has a horribly weak hand.
If the 49 questions are real – there is no crime alleged, so no means to drag Trump in.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/millennials-democrats-poll-economy/
TheOrange County Register Editorial comment?
Those Conservative editors supported Rep. Dana Rohrabacher last election, and will support that traitorous Dickhead no matter who the Democratic challenger is.
I lived in Orange County when I first came to California, and I’m well aware of their slanted rightward opinion. The long time Californians I paled around with then – mostly hard working small contractors and home builders and fisherman who worked out of Dana Point Harbor and San Clemente Pier – called it the Orange County Regergitator.
Are you capable of reading what people say and thinking about it rather than dividing the world into left/right and making your decisions without listening ?
Yes, they are right of center.
That is irelevant. The relevant question is whether their argument is valid.
It is.
It is unacceptable for the media to support conservative positions, but it is expected that everyone will accept the liberal crap distributed by the left leaning media. That is the position of the left and the propaganda being used to indoctrinate the future generations that will vote and govern.
I would suggest seriously considering this.
First note, Trump won the election.
May whatever arguments you want – 65M people voted for him.
Van Jones claimed the election was “blacklash” , or whilelash. It was not. But it was backlash.
In the privacy of the voting booth people can vote what they beleive.
They need not hide or continue to kowtow in obescance to the left.
I particularly note Prager’s last remark.
I am a liberal – a real liberal, someone who values liberty.
The left is the greatest threat to me and that liberty today.
Andrew Mccarthy – excellent as ever.
The Gist – if The 49 questions are all Mueller has – it is time to end this.
This is not the basis to subpeona ANYONE.
There must be a crime alleged,
There must be a reaonable basis to beleive that the person being subpeona’d can provide useful evidence.
Where there is the slightest privilidge – and with respect to Trump there is the highest priviledge, it is also necescary to demonstrate there is no other way to obtain the information.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/robert-mueller-questions-trump-decline-interview/
More Assholeness from Trumpworld
https://twitter.com/lauferlaw/status/991858535385452544?s=21
Are you stupid – that helps Trump/Cohen rather than hurts them.
It makes Trump’s involvement AFTER THE FACT.
Which means all the things you claim were lies are true.
The NDA was badly done – but still legal.
Rudy just confirmed Trump obstructed the FBI Investigation:
#BREAKING: Giuliani: Trump fired Comey because he wouldn’t say Trump wasn’t target of Russia probe hill.cm/QlklXPw
So you are saying that it is a crime for the president to demand that the FBI directory tell the truth ?
That the FBI director say in public what he has said to the president in private ?
You do understand that Comey’s memo’s say that he told Trump he was not the target of the investigation. Though May 2017 Comey testified that Trump was not the target.
You are saying it is obstruction to ask the FBI director to tell congress and the public what he is telling you ?
Dear DDD (Dubious Doubter Dave)
RudyGiuliani describing an in-kind campaign donation:
He literally said Cohen made the payment to avoid having the affair come up in the middle of the last presidential debate.
Explaining why Cohen paid the hush money to Stormy Daniels, #RudyGiuliani says:
“Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton.”
So… yea, he just tied the payment directly to the campaign.
Trump lied to the American people, on camera, from Air Force One. Repeat: LIED about the payment. LIED about ALL of it. Over and over.
BUT YOU’RE OK WITH THAT!
Because in your world the ENDS JUSTIFY THE SLIME!
“Dear DDD (Dubious Doubter Dave)”
Insult is always a good way to make friends influence people and winn arguments.
“RudyGiuliani describing an in-kind campaign donation:”
No,. he said Trump repaid Cohen.
“He literally said Cohen made the payment to avoid having the affair come up in the middle of the last presidential debate.”
By your definition of in kind campaign contributions hillaries participation in the Clinton fund, and her speaking fees, and her entire life would be an inkind campaign contribution.
Get a grip – everything that could effect a campaign is not a campaign contribution.
Trump also settled some law suits – I am certain he did so to get them out of the news to aid in winning the election. They are not in kind campaign contribitions.
These ridiculously broad interpretaitons of the law criminalize breathing, and will come back to bite you fast.
“Explaining why Cohen paid the hush money to Stormy Daniels, #RudyGiuliani says:
“Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton.””
“So… yea, he just tied the payment directly to the campaign.”
So what ?
First the law is stupid. This entire idiocy that the government can control campaigns by excercising control of money is just plain idiotic.
Next, though I do not wish to get into the arcanities of campaign law, Most of the FEC laws are not criminal. No one has ever been successfully prosecuted for something similar to thise.
Most of the FEC laws do not apply – because they would be unconstitutional if they did, UNLESS you take federal matching funds – John McCain is the last candidate to do so in the general election. Finally people are allowed to make unlimited contributions to their own campaigns.
You are trying to claim that Trump violated the law by repaying Cohen ?
Just claiming that something is campaign related in some way does not get you anywhere near where you want.
What you do not grasp is that even if you succeed – if you apply the law broadly and take down Trump.
All you will do is assure that Republicans will use exactly the same laws in the same overly broad way to shred the democrats.
“Trump lied to the American people, on camera, from Air Force One. Repeat: LIED about the payment. LIED about ALL of it. Over and over.”
I am not looking to parse Trump’s remarks. Trump has lied on occasion. More frequently the left attacks are just demands for unrealist recollection and precission.
But if Polliticians lying is a basis for impeachment or criminal prosecution – why isn’t Obama in leavenworth.
“BUT YOU’RE OK WITH THAT!
Because in your world the ENDS JUSTIFY THE SLIME!”
I am OK with following the actual law and the constitution.
I do not have any ends in mind. I am solely interested in the means.
The left and you are engaged in a lawless coup. You are playing the “ends justify the means game”.
It is increasingly self evident that FBI/DOJ never had any basis for this.
If as Brennan said the Intelligence community had all this information about the Trump campaign and Russian – then why is it that what the FBI used for a warrant all stuff that came from outside the IC through improper channels and all sourced in the Clinton campaign.
Everything that has been used to form the basis for this investigation came from the clinton campaign – not the NSA, Not CIA, Not FVEY, Not the FBI.
The Sheerer Dossier was carried by Clinton surrogates through State to the FBI.
The Downer/Papadoulis nonsense came from a clinton affiliated foreign diplomat – not through the IC or through State directly, but through Clinton Surogates too state and then the FBI
And then we have the Steele Dossier.
Now we have democrats raising 50 M to continue the Steele Dossier and we have this retread claim that Cohen was in Prauge in Aug/Sept 2016 coming AGAIN from the same folks that brought us the Steele dossier.
What we have is political operatives, feeding garbage to the investigation, and then leaking that to the press as if somehow that make the garbage more credible.
This is all a stupid game the left has played to put lipstick on a pig.
“First the law is stupid”
Now there’s a brilliant legal assessment.
Donnie: “judge, the law is stupid. I refuse to be convicted of it!”
There is an actual federal law that makes it a felony to say something “obscene” on a wine label.
Do you think that law is stupid ?
All the campaign finance laws are stupid.
Short of using actual force – how I spend my money is NOT the governments business.
There is very limited grants of power in the constitution to regulate federal elections.
You seem under the delusion that just because a law exists – it is a good idea,
or just because you want a law about something, that your demand is not stupid.
And yes, we are racing towards a whole series of constitutional crisises.
The house is demanding information from DOJ that DOJ is refusing.
They have been doing that for a year and a half.
A we have pried that information from DOJ what we keep learning is that the entire Trump investigation wa pollitically corrupt from the start.
Now, some of those participating in the corruption are telling us they will not be extorted or blackmailed into doing their job.
Constitutionally the only body that can investigate the president is congress.
Constitutionally the oversight of the exective is the responsibility of congress.
Frequently both democrats and republicans have botched that and leaked things they should not.
But it is still their job, and a Deputy AG does not get to decide what the House or senate gets to see.
We had lots of this crap during the Obama administration, and it resulted in AG holder being held in contempt.
What all you all so afraid in in the material that Rosenstein will not turn over ?
We already know that Mueller is getting fed information from Fusion GPS, and that democrats are paying 50M to continue to fund the steele dossier work.
That is where the crap about Cohen being in Prague in Augest came from – and it is no more reliable than the rest of the dossier.
Ultimately this is all coming out.
And when it does there is going to be hell to pay – and it is not going to be Trump paying.
Also, if Trump failed to disclose the loan from Cohen on his federal presidential financial disclosure (18 USC 1001.) he broke the law, under penalty for false statements.
“Also, if Trump failed to disclose the loan from Cohen on his federal presidential financial disclosure (18 USC 1001.) he broke the law, under penalty for false statements”
Absolutely Trump has violated the “I made that up” law.
18 USC 1001 does not apply.
You have so many problems.
Reimbursements are not loans.
The payment whether from Trump or Cohen is not a campaign contribution no matter how much you wish to pretend.
Trump can actually spend as much as he wants of his own money on his campaign.
And if you are going to fixate on campaign finance – Clinton, using FEC records received 84M in contributions that were above the actual donor limits.
You are just going to end up with a police state and everyone in jail with this ridiculous – the law is whatever it takes to get those I do not like game.
KELLY ANNE’S HUSBAND TWEETS
(I bet there’s a lot of abstenance in that household)
CHINA GIVES TRUMP (AND US FARMERS)THE MIDDLE FINGER
The head of top U.S. food company Bunge Ltd. revealed that China has essentially stopped purchasing soybeans from the U.S. and has instead turned to countries such as Canada and Brazil amid trade tensions.
“Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Bunge Ltd. CEO Soren Schroder told Bloomberg on Wednesday. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”
Didn’t dumbass Donnie say trade wars were easy to win?
He didn’t mention which side would win easily.
I have been critical of government interferance in Trade in anyway.
Long before Trump.
I think Trump fomenting a trade war with China is a stupid idea.
I think US farmers have already voiced that.
But I would note that stupidity on Trade is not unfortunately partisan.
Both parties are clueless.
The more I research the trade issues, the less I support what Trump is doing. It is not that I do not support trade where both parties benefit equally, but is the fact America is in no position to dictate trade policies to China. We import way more than we export. China owns $1.1T in American debt. America only accounts for 10% of China’s imports, while almost 25% of American imports originate in China. China imports heavy equipment and minerals, while America imports many more consumer goods, meaning China putting tariffs on those products do not harm the consumer as it does in America. China has programs that restrict American business, such as huge tariffs on products unless the companies team with China counterparts to produce a product. This allows trade secrets to be shared with China who then begin reproducing those items in other companies and exporting those as their own. Past trade deals have accepted this practice and now due to the imbalance, it is economically impossible to change now.
I also do not understand people being so upset over the cost of trade, but they find illegal immigration perfectly fine. It cost almost $120B per year to support illegals.Just in California alone, it cost $30B or 18%,of their state budget.
I have no problem with open borders, but dont expect me to support programs that support immigrants that cant support themselves.
I support trade deals that help both parties, but also understand once you are in a position of weakness, the only alternatives are to bite the bullet and feel the pain for a few years until the imbalance is corrected or live with the bad deals in place.
I do not support trade deals at all.
I do not think it is magically possible to look at trade and even if you were a somehow unbiased expert cenceive of the correct framework for trade.
It is certainly stupid to have politicians make those decisions.
BTW Trade MUST be very near perfectly balanced – or it would not occur.
If the Chinese send goods to the US and the US sends green slips of paper – unless those green slips of paper all return and are redeemed for something, the chinese get screwed.
Any money paid to china ultimately much be spent in the US for something.
OK,, so I will stop worrying and commenting about trade. When a company develops a product and the Chinese steel the technology and sell it back to us at 25% of the USA production cost and thousands loose their jobs, thats a goid thing because the 25% we paid will come back and take the place of the 100% that did not occur.
By the way, I have two light bulbs that lasted 2 months when the company said they would last 12months under normal use. And I use the less than “normal”. So I get to replace these cheap chinese shitty bulbs 4-5 times a year because they ran the american producers out of business, but thats a good thing. I get to pay more than I would have for american made, but the money will come back, so thats a good thing.
DAVE, THAT IS TOTAL BS!!!! I have light bulbs American made that I installed in 1986 and they are still working. I replace chinese shit 4-5 times a year. That is not a good thing!!!!!!
Yup, those fucking Chinese lightbulbs suck!
Just replaced two that lasted less than 6 months indoors with casual use.
Same short life on coffee makers, damn timers failing in a year.
Our American made O’Keefe & Merritt stove, in the house when we moved in, made in 1940s, still working great!
First actual things can be owned – ideas can not.
Is anyone paying royalties to the inventor of the wheel ?
The USSR stole our technology for decades – they remained permanently behind.
There is only so far you can get by stealing ideas. Ultimately you must conceive of them.
More important than that you must have the people who can conceive of they.
The real value is not the ideas, but those people who came up with those ideas.
When the chinese “steal” our ideas and produce them for us at 25% the cost (actual current differences are 85% or the cost not including shipping)., they make us better off.
Standard of living rises when more value is produced for less human cost.
BTW not only MUST what we paid come back – but so must the goods we bought.
Free exchanges is neatly always a win-win.
We are actually much better off in the US because china has moved to the bottom of the first world.
Current estimates are that the cost reductions that have occured as a result of china have saved each american family about 4000/year.
BTW rising standards of living ALWAYS mean some people MUST lose the jobs they have and must get others.
It does not matter whether it is the chinese, illegal aliens, or robots.
Standard of living rises when we produce more value with less human effort.
The shift in light bulbs was caused – or atleast accelerated by our government.
Coupled with the failure of US business to compete.
The failures you have experienced are being resolved and are the result of Government rushing us into something before it was ready.
CFL’s are dying out rapidly – they are expensive to produce, If done well only last somewhat longer than Incandescents and only offer a 2-1 power saving advantage.
LED’s which are coming out now offer a 10:1 power savings, and are simpler and cheaper to produce.
The failure issue – which exists with both CFL’s and LED’s is because they are more complex than incandescent bulbs – particularly if you want them to be dimable on standard US circuits – it is actually trivial to Dim an LED – but not in a way that works with AC dimmers.
The simplest LED bulb is mad of 20 4v LED’s in series – there are no other parts,
But they are not dimmable and a single LED or connection failure and the bulb dies.
CFL’s and dimmable bulbs require far more complex circuits – ultimately we will make those both dirt cheap and reliable, but only idiots would expect that out of the first couple of generations whether made in China or the US.
But in the end we are getting LED bulbs today for the price of incandescents.
They are using 1/10 the power to produce the same light. They generate less heat,
they are now dimmanble, and they are growing more reliable all the time.
Theoretically they could reach a life time of 50,000 hours. But they are already well past the 700-2500 life time of incandescents.
BTW I do not know where you are getting your bulbs, but I replaced my Incandescents with CFL’s as they burned out. I have few Incandescents left.
I replaced my CFL’s with LED’s as they burned out – that took about twice as long as Incandescents. I have burned out 3 LED’s in 4-5 years. I have broken more – by thwacking them, and LEDs take more thwacking than incandescents.
The Cohen fiasco continues with a new alleged money flow to Cohen and his legal kitty.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-paid-portions-michael-cohens-legal-fees/story?id=54831269
That story came out a couple of days ago…
Do you think that may have had something to do with Rudy saying Trump paid off Cohen with his own money?
“That story came out a couple of days ago…
Do you think that may have had something to do with Rudy saying Trump paid off Cohen with his own money?”
Honestly, I do not believe any of it, or better put, I do not know what to believe.
First there has been massive amounts of self serving and false or partly false leaks in everything having to do with Trump from the start.
What appears to be true of the Cohen Prague story is that it is a product of Steele II, that this claim was provided to Mueller by the Steele II people, and then leaked to the press.
There is no reason to believe that there actually is meaningful new evidence, or that whatever there is, is any better than or more verified than the original Steel Dossier.
There is no reason to believe Mueller is taking is seriously.
Recently Mueller’s 49 Questions was leaked. There are competing claims regarding where they came from and whether the leaked questions are actually Mueller’s questions.
There is weak evidence that the questions were leaked by Trump’s team, and that the questions Might be altered or invented.
The switch regarding Cohen’s payments to Daniels occurred after Guiliani came on board.
We have no real facts to confirm anything about where the money to pay Daniels came from.
I can think of some very good reasons why Gulliani may have constructed this new version of the story.
Throughout this there is very very little of what makes it too the press that we can know is true.
The only things we can rely on are well established facts.
With respect to what we know regarding Daniels.
We know that Cohen and Daniels signed an NDA, and that Daniels was paid 130K.
There is nothing illegal about that.
There are few allegations I have heard that MIGHT be illegal.
The claim by Daniels that someone “threatened” her.
As reported by Daniels the threat is ominous but not actually illegal.
The threat can be understood as “keep your agreement”
Purportedly she can identify the person making the threat, but as of yet that person has not been identified and is not Cohen Trump or anyone associated with them.
What is very troubling about the SDNYC raid of Cohen is that we have seen nothing publicly that constitutes probable cause of any crime.
Normally we Trust law enforcement regarding Probable cause.
But we know that the top law enforcement officials in this country sought a warrant on Carter Page and Paul Manafort without probable cause.
I know you do not grasp how important that is. But that is a big deal. It means the DOJ/FBI are acting outside and above the law.
Sharyl Attkinson herself a target of Obama surveilance noted that warrants against Journalists and politicians without meeting incredibly high standards of proof – super probable cause, to get a warrant is highly unusual and new starting with the Obama administration.
We have Rosentein stalling over providing the scope memo for the Mueller investigation to congress – tanting that he will not be extorted.
Rosenstein signed off on the Carter Page warrant – his judgement over what constitutes probable cause is already suspect.
There have been myriads of critiques that the Mueller investigation does not meet the statutory requirements.
The left is constantly engaged in these flights of fancy regarding what constitutes a violation of various laws – like obstruction of Justice or Money Laundering or Campaign Finance matters.
and trying to criminalize legal conduct.
Those who live by the law – die by the law.
It is near certain at this point that there was nothing approaching probable cause for the Manafort and Page warrants.
You still do not grasp how huge a deal that is. I keep telling you “worse that watergate” but you have ideological blinders on.
Nixon Tried to get the IRS and FBI to investigate enemies and political rivals.
Everything associated with Watergate was because he FAILED.
Aside from undermining the entire investigation, it also raises legitimate concerns that the same failure to follow the law permeats the investigation.
Purportedly Mueller is investigationg the Daniels NDA – there is nothing there to investigate.
While the Campaign Finance law violation is a red herring, even if a broad version was accepted, violations are not typically Crimes.
BTW seeking NDA’s from people who might have damaging things to say about a candidate is fairly common. It occured many many times with Clinton.
Broderick who alleges that Clinton raped her, recanted that claim in writing at the clintons request in return for a promise to be left alone by them.
If we stick to actually known facts, and real crimes – Mueller should never have been appointed.
And we have more than enough to fire large numbers of people.
At this point the only reason that Rosenstein actually remains at DOJ is that Sessions recusal makes him unfireable.
He should be terminates solely for signing off on the FISA warrants.
That is actually a crime – though one rarely prosecuted. Something that should change.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-justice-department-is-defiant-1525388245?shareToken=st95f3b1da95e0479c8318c17ccdbd59e2&reflink=article_email_share
Strassle makes excellent points – the FBI/DOJ is continuing to resist providing documents that impact current investigations in only one way – confirming or discrediting the the legitimacy of the investigation itself.
As an example – almost no one understands the Flynn plea to lying to the FBI.
It is a text book case of entrappement, and Flynn’s “lie” is merely an inaccurate recollection of a tiny part of a conversation that he was not given an oportuntiy to refresh his memory prior to the ambush interview. The agents in question purportedly stated that Flynn did not lie, Comay purportedly testified that the agents reported that to him. DOJ has redacted that portion of the HPSCI’s report. There is nothing classified here. The only issue is the credibility of Comey vs. the HPSCI and the legitimacy of Mueller’s handling of Flynn.
My guess is the DOJ fear here is that if Comey’s testimony is made public, Trump could legimately either pardon Flynn or order his prosecution terminated.
That would be a bitch slap in the face of Mueller and would seriously undermine his credibility.
As things go forward we learn ever more. The Libbty pardon was likely a bitch slap at Rosenstein, Comey, Fitzgerald, and Mueller – who are all freinds and all involved.
Comey was in Rosensteins position and appointed Fitzgerald, Mueller was head of the FBI at the time. BEFORE fitzgerald was appointed, everything about the investigation was known.
Armitage at state had already confirmed he had inadvertantly leaked Plames identity, Novak had confirmed with Armitage’s pemission, and CIA had confirmed that Plame was no longer NOC and therefore her name was no longer protected – there was no violation of the law.
So we have the same cabal creating their own unrevieable fiefdom to conduct an unconstrained investigation of a non-crime – sound familiar ?
Jay, I think someone woke up and said: we can lie to the press and the public, but it would be stupid to think they wouldn’t find out that Cohen got money put into a “hush fund” account. I don’t find that as wrong, only lying and hiding the fact. Cohen did his job, covering up always ends badly.
With respect to Trump purportedly Reimbursing Cohen.
I do not think we have any clue what the truth is and probably never will.
My personal opinion is Giuliani’s remarks despite conflicting with Trump’s prior public statements (as well as Cohen’s) were made because Giuliani determined that it was better legally for Cohen to be actually working for Trump.
Also because Trump has made it clear he doesn’t believe that Cohen is ever flippling on him.
Giuliani does not believe that is the case. By “reconstructing” this as something Cohen was paid for, it falls back under attorney Client.
I would note that tracing the payments is not going to be nearly so easy as you think.
Trump paid Cohen directly for things, and The campaign paid cohen for things.
Attorney’s bills are never very clear on what they were for.
Guiliani, Cohen, Trump, Mueller can all say different things at different times and it will never be possible to know what is true.
Absent actually finding an invoice labeled “reimbursement for Daniels NDA” anyone can say anything they please.
Finally, NDA’s are perfectly legal – even when you call them “hush money” As Bill Clinton.
It has received only small press but Trump’s doorman received 30K to quit telling the story that Trump had a child with his maid.
A story that is near certainly false.
See you can even get paid off to keep quiet about something that is not true.
“Cohen did his job, covering up always ends badly.”
It does ? I have signed dozens of NDA’s none of them have ended badly.
It is covering up crimes that always ends badly.
There is no crime here.
Sorry, DD – but this is just boring.
They are not on shaky ground. If they were Clinton would be in jail for hundreds of years.
Do you have to keep trying to make everything you do not like into the crime of the century.
This is really simple – I do not care how broadly you interpret the law. But however you do, with respect to Trump – you are required to do the same with everyone else.
We can jail the entire federal government and try again.
Sorry- Mr. Mucous- but your posts are boring and convoluted.
Do you have to personalize everything negatively.
“Sorry- Mr. Mucous- but your posts are boring and convoluted.
Do you have to personalize everything negatively.”
Do you even read what you write ?
I attacked – not personalized – the piece you linked to.
Do you always take personally valid criticism of others ?
Do you always fill your false critiques of the “personalization” of the arguments of others with ad hominem ?
Are you this totally un self aware ?
RCP’s fact check review on fact checking sites.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/04/fact-checking_a_business_or_a_public_service_136972.html
Keep in mind RCP is owned and operated by Conservatives. Though they do publish news and commentary from both sides, overall they’re more Right than left.
Ownership philosophy:
“McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on “freedom” and “common-sense values”. Said Bevan, “We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions”. He further stated, “we have a frustration all conservatives have”, which is “the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives”.[4]
RCP is a highly respected news and polling aggregator.
Deliberately trying to be unbiased unlike the rest of the media is not being biased.
Regardless, actually read RCP’s critiques of other Fact Checkers – RCP is NOT BTW atleast at this time in the business of “fact checking”.
What they are doing is providing methodological criticism of the fact checkers.
And their work on that is excellent.
They have posted several articles providing careful informed critque – not of specific facts checks – though they do use examples, but of the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics
I know you think that anything that challenges your views is inherently biased, while anything that conforms to them is unbiased, but you really should read more.
I have found that RCP does an excellent job of finding the best articles on various topics from each side of an issue, and that they generally stray away from the political “red meat” journalism.
I think this is a company looking to build a brand – not with conservatives or progressives, but with ordinary people, for providing the best quality views on any subject representing the best put forth by each side, and not that which appleas the most to a particular base.
This is also significant.
Jordan Peterson recently commented that ignoring the legal and political aspects,
the left should seriously consider the serious harm they will do themselves if they manage to win this – without earning the agreement of most of those on the right.
Trump won this election. Those who voted for him have a large personal stake in that outcome.
They were sending a massage loud and clear to washington.
Of you deprive them of the legitimate fruits of their victory you drive them towards less legitimate means to achieve their goals. This is particularly true if you thwart them in a way they perceive as illegitimate.
At the moment by far the greatest threat of violence is from the left.
But that need not remain so. It is not neo-nazi’s that need be feared. it is the increasing anger of ordinary Trump supporters and their increasing perception that they will not be permitted to accomplish their goals through legitimate means.
The linked article references polls. As the partisan divide increases the majority position becomes less relevant. What matters is not Trump’s overall support, or Muellers overall support, but their support among republican voters and independent voters.
Trump appears to be doing well will both. Mueller appears to be doing badly.
Further myriads of polls have indicated that the Blue wave is fizzling.
Trump’s shuft to Guilliani and the Clinton impeachment lawyer seems to ba a shift to becoming more confrontational with Mueller. I would note that alot of people want that.
Trump can directly order Rosenstein to comply with the congressional document requests.
Trump’s prior legal team had been trying as hard as possible to avoid Trump acting in any way that could be painted with ludicrously broad brushes as obstruction.
I think that period is over. I doubt Trump will fire Rosenstein or Mueller.
But I strongly suspect the gloves are off, and things will get more confrontational.
That favors Trump. It is not going to drive supporters away, it is only going to anger people who are already angry.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/04/mueller_probe_could_boost_gop_midterm_candidates_136977.html
But there are already twice as many Anti Trumpers who are angry.
And even Fox News is losing patience with Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/04/foxs-cavuto-to-trump-thats-your-stink-mr-president-thats-your-swamp/
Jay, Trump’s favorability from inaguration through the present is within a few points at any time of Obama’s. Currently several polls have it over 50% – so no there are not twice as many people who hate Trump as love him – except in your head space.
Further if I were polled I would get Trump somewhat favorable feedback on performance,
But not on character.
Yet, it should be crystal clear that though I did not vote for Trump, I am far more offended by the worse than watergate corruption in CIA, DNI, FBI. DOJ at the start of this.
And not only do I absolutely agree with Trump that this is a witch hunt.
But I probably find it more vile than he does.
To be clear – as much as I dislike Clinton, Clinton and the DNC funding the Steele Dossier, as well as trying to feed it as well as other things to DOJ/FBI anyway they could does not offend me.
That is politics. Just as Trump trying to get dirt on Clinton.
The crime is that the Executive Branch of the US government allowed itself to be used for political purposes.
I really am close to supporting Criminal charges against anyone who signed off on the FISA warrant or any other Warrant using unverified and politically sourced claims.
And I have zero problem with prosecuting anyone in DOJ or FBI who lies under oath.
I have a major problem with the Flynn plea. I hope it tanks.
If you have something real on Flynn – charge that.
I think that Manafort is being seriously overcharged – but he is likely guilty of tax evasion.
The rest is garbage. My guess is Mueller will likely convict – probably on about half of what he has charged, and apeals courts will whittle away at that quietly over years until there is nothing left. Manafort will spend millions staying out of jail but he will succeed.
Unless they have something on his Taxi business, Mueller is getting nowhere with Cohen.
Yes, Jay, and thank you Cavuto.
“You are right to say some of them are out to get you. But oftentimes they’re using your own words to bat you,” Cavuto said. “You probably might not care. But you should. I guess you’ve been too busy draining the swamp to stop and smell the stink you’re creating. That’s your doing. That’s your stink. Mr. President, that’s your swamp.”
I wish more people would get after the rationalizers that enable Trump’s being LIC (liar In Chief).
I do not follow Fox, and I do not know Cavoto – but based on the quotes he is wrong.
While it is wise to get things perfect when others are lying about you – it is not a requirement.
When the media and the left are out to get you – which they clearly are, You owe them no respect.
I think you will find that most – nearly all of the people who voted for trump are still with him.
I would note that Roseanne is getting top ratings, and The Last Man Standing is likely being brought back.
I may not know alot about Fox, but I do know that they reflect a specific flavor of conservatism.
It is not and never was Trump.
Trump may have some defenders at Fox, but he is not fox’s kind of people.
Nor is Roseanne or Tim Allen’s audience.
You should remove “rationalizer” from your vocabulary.
It is not a partilulary useful word if used properly – and you do not.
Rather than attacking people whose views you do not share – you should listen to more of them.
Because you are clearly unfamiliar.
What is there to be upset about regarding Trump ?
That he is aggressive and imprecise in his tweets ?
That he spins less eloquently than Obama ?
What actual crime has he committed ?
Nixon authorized the payment of money to criminals for their silence – text book obstruction of justice.
You do not have anything like that here.
Even Mueller could not connect the Trump campaign to Russia.
At that point this investigation should have died.
Yet as this goes on we learn more and more of real crimes committed by members of DOJ/FBI
The most serious crime alleged in this entire investigation that has any proof at all – is lying under oath – and it is Comey. McCabe and Clapper that incontrovertably did that and may face charges.
Do you beleive that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us ?
I do.
I beleive that whether Trump is the president or Obama is.
the “rationalizers” are those continuing to hope against hope, that something is coming down the pike, when over and over there is nothing.
“Noun. rationalizer (plural rationalizers) One who rationalizes.”
Simple, but over an obtuse person’s head.
Rationalize:
to bring into accord with reason such as : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of rationalize a myth
to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts rationalize a denominator
to apply the principles of scientific management to (something, such as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (such as increased efficiency)
Non Political Question.
Anyone have experience with Airtable?
It looks like it might be useful.
I’m thinking of downloading it.
The Federal Judge hearing the case against Manafort in VA, has given Mueller a very hard time.
He has accused Mueller of lying to him.
He has demanded proof from Mueller that he has the authority to prosecute Manafort for matters unrelated to Russia or the Trump Campaign.
He has demanded an unredacted copy of Mueller’s memo of authorization.
He has further noted that most of the charges are poorly founded and look more like an effort to extort Manafort into rolling on Trump.
He is suggesting he is strongly inclined to dismiss, and let the appropriate US ADA refile if they believe they can make a case.
The point – which those on the left are unable to grasp is that the government may use the actual crimes that real criminals have committed as leverage to get them to roll on others.
But the government may NOT manufacture crimes or severely over charge for the purpose of creating the leverage to do so. The latter is actually extortion and it is a crime.
I am surprised at this judges remarks. Not because they are false.
But because it is normal that only the highly privilidged and clearly innocent can get this kind of justice from the courts.
Manaforts primary problem in defending himself is that he is perceived as scurrilous.
In theory the courts are not supposed to allow the government to extort even a previously convicted murderer who never-the-less is facing Trumped up charges.
In practice Manafort is not the defendant for whom the system tends to work.
Absolutely, the judges assessment is accurate, Mueller is trying to flip Manafort to get higher ups, hopefully trump.
“The operative question here is whether Manafort committed the crimes he’s accused of and whether Mueller had the authority to charge them,” said Jeffrey Cramer, a longtime former federal prosecutor who spent 12 years at the Justice Department. “Whether prosecutors brought the case to flip Manafort is entirely irrelevant.”
If Mueller provided evidence of crimes committed that are prosecutable, the judge will order Manafort to be prosecuted.
Alex Whiting, a former federal prosecutor from Boston and Washington, DC, said as much.
“It is well-established that it is beyond a judge’s authority to inquire into, or second-guess, a prosecutor’s exercise of charging discretion unless there is some evidence that the prosecutor based the decision on improper factors,” Whiting said.
He is charged with tax fraud, bank fraud, and failing to report foreign bank accounts in Virginia. In Washington he is charged with money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent, and lying to investigators.
Both indictments center largely around Manafort’s lobbying work for the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian interests.
If he’s guilty of those charges, I’m sure as a citizen who believes in punishment for criminal activity you believe he should be punished. If innocent, released from the charges.
I would suggest reading what the Judge said more carefully before agreeing with it.
The Judge said that:
The charges appeared to him to be outside Muellers mandate – as Mueller provided to the court.
That means that Mueller does not have the authority to prosecure them at all – and as with the Cohen investigation, they must be turned over to the US ADA for that region.
That the charges do not appear to have much in the way of evidence to support them,
The Judge is saying CORRECTLY, that you may not prosecute an innocent person for the purpose of attempting to flip them on someone you believe is guilty.
Think about that twice – this judge is saying that in the evidence Mueller has put before the court, they judge does not beleive that the prosecutor met the burden necescary to bring charges.
Your quote:
“The operative question here is whether Manafort committed the crimes he’s accused of and whether Mueller had the authority to charge them,”
And what the Judge is saying is that based on what he has seen thus far:
Mueller has NOT demonstrated to the very low standard necescary to bring charges that Manafort is quilty,
Mueller has NOT demonstrated that he has the authority to charge Manafort.
The difference between blackmail, extortion and acceptable action rests with the legitimacy of the threat you are making, as well as your own conformance to the rule of law.
If Mueller acts beyond what the law actually allows – he is merely a criminal engaged in blackmail and extortion – the fact that you think the end might be noble is irrelevant.
If Manafort is innocent – and I have raised this repeatedly here, Manafort is a scurlous character, he is hard to have sympathy for, but all the evidence we have thus far is that all money in the transactions Mueller has targeted was legally acquired – that means all charges of money laundering are bogus. It also means that all charges of money laundering are evidence of MISCONDUCT on the part of the prosecutor. .
My read of the facts from Muellers indictments is that there MIGHT be a credible case of tax evasions. From facts outside the Mueller indictment, it is my understanding that Mueller did not initially charge tax evasion because in 2014 Manafort and the IRS resolved the issue of his taxes.
Any charge would be double jeophardy.
Those are my arguments – we do not know what the Judge is thinking – except that we do know based on his remarks that he does nto at this point beleive that Mueller has either the authority or the evidence to bring these charges.
I would further note that Manafort is being prosecuted in Both DC and VA, and the current remarks are from the VA judge. The DC judge has also been highly critical of Mueller, she has just not gone quite so far as to suggest that Mueller is lying.
Regardless, you have two federal judges who are BOTH dubious of the charges against Manafort for much the same reasons.
And Manafort is the easiest conviction you are likely to be able to get.
“It is well-established that it is beyond a judge’s authority to inquire into, or second-guess, a prosecutor’s exercise of charging discretion unless there is some evidence that the prosecutor based the decision on improper factors,” Whiting said.
Whiting is flat out wrong. Virtually every defense attorney, if virtually every case ever moves to dismiss the case based on the prosecutor failing to meet the burden necescary to bring the case to court.
Such a motion occurs nearly every step through the process of a trial.
BTW the claim that Mueller is over charging Manafort to get him to flipp is “an improper factor”.
You have litterally admitted the basis for dismissal in your own argument.
He is charged with tax fraud
That is an IRS matter outside Mueller’s domain. Equally important the IRS matter was purportedly resolved in 2014.
“bank fraud” Be specific I have heard nothing beyond I do not like the way you have played arround with your money.
“failing to report foreign bank accounts in Virginia”
No such crime. There is no obligation to disclose foreign assets and income.
These are outside the jurisdiction of the US.
The ACTUAL claim is that when he transfered foriegn funds into the US – and therefore subjected them to taxes, that he failed to pay those taxes – so we are back to the IRS and back to a double jepohardy problem
“In Washington he is charged with money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent, and lying to investigators.”
Money laundering requires the money to have been the product of a criminal act.
Strike one.
If you actually bother to examing Manafort’s actions regarding rhe Ukraine – it is Podesta Group that would be the unregistered foreign agents.
The Ukrainians hired manafort. Manafort then hired Podesta and another firm to do the acutal lobbying. Manafort had no contact with law makers or regulatiors. He did not engage in the type of lobbying that required registration.
Strike two.
Lying to investigators is a much weaker claim than you think.
It is near certain that if the Flynn plea were ever to be litigated that Mueller would lose.
18 US 1001 requires that the investigators were actually deceived.
It can not be used by prosecutors to trap criminal defendants, that is entrappment, and it is both improper and illegal.
Strike 3.
Think about what happens with if Mueller FAILS with Manafort ?
Your DONE!.
“Both indictments center largely around Manafort’s lobbying work for the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian interests.”
Correct – and as the VA judge pointed – Mueller has not tied Manafort to Russia, only the Ukraine.
And as eaised above – Manafort did not “lobby” for the Ukraine, he hired others to do so – Podesta Group. The failure to register is theirs not his.
Further there have been almost no prosecutions of this ever.
“If he’s guilty of those charges, I’m sure as a citizen who believes in punishment for criminal activity you believe he should be punished. If innocent, released from the charges.”
Guilty of what ? Your claim is that he is guilty of working for foreigners you do not like.
That is not actually a crime.
The unregistered lobbying is both weak – in the sense that it is a very small violation that would never result in jail, if one was convicted, and weak in the sense that Manafort did not do the actual lobbying.
I am absolutely inclined to take pleasure in Manafort getting his comeuppance.
But I expect you to find him guilty of a real crime, and further one that I actually care about.
Not the crime of being offensive – or of having offended you.
Finally I would expect that YOU would afford even Manafort the protections of the law.
If he resolved his tax issues in 2014 – The IRS purportedly initially refused to support Muller in the Manafort indictment because there was a settlement – then I would expect that all charges related to money and taxes would be dropped.
I would expect that if Mueller can not PROVE that Manaforts money was not the procedes of a crime then those charges would be dropped, and that you would encourage that.
I would expect that YOU would not support prosecutors charging people with crimes they KNOW they can not convict on for the purpose of bankrupting the defendent or scaring them into rolling ?
I would expect that you seek to get criminals to flip on criminals,
Not innocent people to flip on innocent people.
You seem sure about the judge dropping the charges or kicking them to another jurisdiction.
I say he’s going to proceed in his court.
Let’s make a wager.
If you’re right, I will stop posting here for a month.
If I’m right, you stop posting for a month.
Deal?
I have a better wager for you two. Whoever is wrong has to post “XXX was right about _—–” and then for 30 days there can be no name calling or other derogatory remarks by the loser. Just the facts!
(I dont think it can be done😁!)
Let’s combine the two: acknowledgement, and banishment.
Jay,
As noted – I am not making predictions regarding the current judges who are both raising questions.
Only noting they are saying what I have been saying from the start.
There is no jurisdiction,
The charges are not supported by the evidence.
What they will do ? Who knows. Alot of pressure can be brought on a judge and I would expect that.
It is also rare – no matter how unhappy a judge is with a prosecutor for them to tank a case.
But at the very least you already owe the rest of us an apology.
Because two federal judges are saying the same things we are.
That does not make us right, but it does make us highly credible.
I would note further possibilities – which Mueller should seriously fear.
That is Mueller is allowed to proceed, and he has two judges who are going to be very difficult from start to finish, making it near impossible for him to convict.
Regardless. I do not see them throwing everything out.
I see one of three things.
Forcing Mueller to turn this over to the VA and DC US ADA’s – where it is likely little will happen.
Whittlingly down the charges slowly until nothing is left.
A plea to some tiny offense where Manafort claims to be cooperating, and nothing happens.
“You seem sure about the judge dropping the charges or kicking them to another jurisdiction.
I say he’s going to proceed in his court.”
I am not sure of anything – except that these judges are pointing out much the same flaws in Mueller’s prosecutions as I have for months.
I have also noted that I am surprised – because usually a case like this gets further along before this type of pushback.
Betting on this is difficult.
The most probable outcome is for Manafort to plead.
A victory for Manafort would take millions of dollars, many many years – and there is no guarantee. Worse still Manafort is just not the person who will actually get the benefit of the doubt.
Bad clients tend to make for bad outcomes – even on appeal.
So my guess is Manafort pleads to some tiny offense. We get some claim – like with Flynn that he is “cooperating” we get a bunch of stories about Manafort knows where all the bodies are buried and Trump id doomed. and then time passes and nothing happens.
But assuming that does nto happen – I do not expect the judge to Drop this.
But I expect to see the charges get whittled away, some now, some before kicking it to a jury, some by appeals courts, until there is little or nothing left.
What you are NOT going to see is a conviction for this garage sale collection of charges.
All that surprises me with respect to the VA and DC judges is that the case against Manafort is coming apart so fast.
The Scooter Libby Pardon appears to have been strategically brilliant.
It forced a public re-examination of special counsels.
And the facts regarding Libby are horrible,
Ashworth was recused so
Comey appointed Fitgerald as SC and Mueller was FBI director at the time.
Comey KNEW when he apointed Fitgerald, that Richard Armitage had already confessed to inadvertently providing Plames name to Novack, AND CIA had informed Comey that Plame was no longer NOC at the time – i.e. her name was no longer a protected secret.
So the whole Fitzgerald SC was another witch hunt.
All that got hashed up again in the news
And Comey, Fitzgerald, and Mueller all look different today.
Now they look more like co-conspirators engaged in their own self serving abuse of power.
Ad to this Derschowitz’s revival of the attack’s on Mueller’s handling of Bulger,
And the other stories of overzealous prosecution by Mueller – Richard Jewel, the Anthrax case,
And it is easy for a federal judge to decide Mueller’s judgement is not to be trusted.
Whatever the outcome, the lasting damage has been done. Jay keeps harping on the damage Trump is doing. Nothing he has done has created the damage Mueller is doing. There are groups of people that had negative views of police, but the FbI was an agency most people felt doing a good job. Now the same distrust for local police has permeated the FBI by a different group from those distrusting local police. And Comey and Mueller are directly respinsible for this change that will last for years. Trump will only last another 2years.
Ron, are You saying that he will quit or lose in 2020?
I think there is a very small chance he may decide not to run, but that is very slight and has more to do with his feeling fulfilled by the job since he is someone who needs his ego stoked. When you have individuals like Cavuto saying what he has said and other members of the GOP not saying good things about him, he may say the hell with it and not run. maybe a 5% chance if that happening. What is happening with his son would have no bearing on Trumps decision as I don’t think he gives a damn about any family member other than his daughter and son-in-law. Barron is just someone who lives with them. Maybe 15% chance if Pelosi becomes Speaker and the House devotes all its energies in impeachment since they will know even if Shumer takes the Senate, getting something passed and to the president and signed will have little chance of happening, so to get national attention on a daily basis, impeachment proceedings is the best news source.
But what I think will happen is with or without a challenger in the primaries, he will go down and go down big against almost any democrat they put up against him. I believe the democrats will identify another minority that will energize the minority voters like Obama and that will swing the few states Trump carried by a few percentage points to the democrat. States like North Carolina where Trump carried by 3.5% the democrat would be about to turn that around. Romney only won by 2% and that was with Obama was not well liked in the state. NC has also had an influx of business move in bringing job relocations from the north, making it a much easier Democrat win, even without a personality like Trump running.
I dont think the voters will be voting based on economics this time. The 2018 election will show that. If they do, the GOP will keep everything.
My prediction,
Trump has no challenger of consequence in 2020.
Trump defeats whatever democrat runs against him handily.
There are things that could change this – the economy could tank.
The left could actually find the silver bullet that will cause Trump to self destruct.
These are not impossible, just unlikely.
The odds are greater that he has a stroke, or is assassinated.
“The odds are greater that he has a stroke, or is assassinated.”
I bet all of Trump’s wives, present and past, pray each night for one or the other option.
“I bet all of Trump’s wives, present and past, pray each night for one or the other option.”
Just like voters, they knew what they were buying.
This is where we have a WIDE CHASM of mindboggling different opinion.
.
Trump and his Trumpster brigades are the ones responsible for undermining the reputation of the FBI, and related law enforcement like the DOJ. IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT, ITS HOPELESS TO CONTINUE CONVERSING.
Enough…
Viewing the situation from your standpoint I understand why you say this.
But there are many who view this from the viewpoint that I view this and I see Comey, Mueller and all his minions chasing snipe. If there is anything there, get off the crapper and show it!!! Stop all this leak shit and indictments of underlings that have led no where. Flynn was charged over a year ago. Does that really indicate Mueller wants to get on with it since there has been no trial and no one knows if he copped a plea or not? Last I heard he reversed his decision to plead guilty.
Comey writes a book in the middle of the investigation to capitalize on the moment and make his fortune. Is that really what an FBI director does or former director does. Ore does a former director keep his mouth shut until everything comes out and then make public his positions.
Your blind hatred for Trump will not allow you to see what others may be seeing. I think Trump is an ass. I think Trump is a lair. I would not want him sitting down at my dinner table. And I sure as hell would not want him within shouting distance of my daughters. But none of this has anything to do with Russian collusion and nothing so far has been identified that is impeachable. Others see the same things as I am seeing and also see what is not happening with the Mueller investigation. The only things we see is the daily tweets from some reporter that says something in 200 characters or less that vaguely ties Trump to something that may or may not have happened. That to me is what real fake News is.
The Flynn deal is not being finalalized, because Sullivan has required Mueller to turn over all evidence that might be exculpatory – and to err heavily on the side of Giving Flynn everything and pretty much telegraphed that if it turns out that Mueller hid something – Sullivan is going after Mueller and team.
Muller has therefore been requesting successive delays. These are to delay providing Flynn with what he is holding – because I am sure Mueller – probably rightly beleives:
Flynn will pass it immediately to Trump,
and Flynn will withdraw his plea.
The result is a huge black eye for Mueller.
Even the Manafort prosecution has just hit two huge bumps in the road from two different judges who are very troubled by all smoke and no fire.
Trump and his Trumpster brigades are the ones responsible for undermining the reputation of the FBI, and related law enforcement like the DOJ.
Was Trump the FBI SAC in Boston ?
Was Trump the responsible for the incarceration of innocent people to protect Bulger ?
Was Trump responsible for the twice botched prosecutions of the Hells angels ?
Was Trump responsible for the covering up for the FBI misconduct at Ruby Ridge ?
Was Trump responsible for the mallicious false prosecution of Richard Jewel ?
Was Trump responsible for the Mailicious and false proseection of two different americans – hounding one to suicide in the Anthrax case – that NAS thinks was likely an Al Qeda operation, and almost certainly was NOT domestic ?
Was Trump responsible for the Scooter Libby investigation that was clearly without any basis ?
Was Trump responsible for lying to the FISA courts about probable cause to get warrants to spy on one political party ?
Was Trump responsible for self servijng and false leaks to the press about the Clinton investigation ? For subsequently lying under oath about it ?
Did Trump try to orchestrate a secret meeting with the AG about the target of a criminal investigation ?
I can go on and on.
The DOJ/FBI and the specific individuals involved are responsible for the damage to their own reputations. Trump did NOTHING to bring that about.
The fact that you do not understand that makes it clear where the rationalizing, ideological blindness is.
The evidence of agregious misconduct within DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA/…. is broad, deep, and compelling.
No matter what else may or may not be true of Trump, we have more than enough that very large numbers of people ust lose their jobs, and be permanently barred from further public service.
Some of them should be prosecuted for crimes.
Finally changes must be made such that this can not occur again.
It is ALWAYS far more important to root out corruption INSIDE government than any other form of malfeasance on the outside.
Even if the entirety of the left’s meme about Trump – was actually true.
The corruption of DOJ/FBI/…. would be far more important.
Further it is evident that though this is being exposed by the Trump investigation, that the problem is many decades old
With respect to Trump etc.
Demonstrate that there is evidence of a real and serious crime.
No one not on the far left gives a damn about this Stormy Daniels stuff – absolutely we are following it, even titilated by it, fascinated by it.
Daniels is a big hit is texas strip clubs and most of those getting autographs are Trump supporters. The story is huge and it draws us all in.
But it does not get you Trump.
Worse, the prosecution of Cohen looks and feels stupid.
Again only the left sees a crime under every bush.
The majority of people do not care that Cohen/Trump sought to buy Stormy’s silence.
They may be happy that the story is out and fascinated by the details, btu they do not see a crime.
Worse still for the left – they do not understand the prosecution of Cohen, for doing something legal.
You have gone many bridges too far with this – trust me there is a crime in here somewhere.
I have explained why you are engaged in egregious overreach to claim campaign finance violations. But even if you got them – few would care.
People are strange.
You can find myrids of instances were people reject my libertarian values.
But those same people looking at the same issue from a different view support them.
And that is why clear bright line strongly supported laws matter and make the rule of law.
We are capable of concurrently beleiving that government can regulate the money spent on politics AND beleiving that if Trump wants to spend 130K to but Daniels silence before an election that is fine – because people can do as they please with their own money.
When you make laws that run outside the legitimate scope of the law, this is the problem that you have while you can get the support needed to pass the laws, you can not get the outrage needed to support prosecuting them – because people do not really consider those actions to be wrong.
You can not demonstrate that the DNC was hacked, much less that the Russians did it and that Trump Helped.
In fact even the uncredible allegations regarding Trump and Russia are all AFTER the DNC hack
If We assumed most of the unsupported claims against Trump or his campaign were TRUE – you still do not have anything.
Cohen going to Prague in Aug 2016 is too late.
Trump Jr. Meeting Natialia for any purpose in July is TOO LATE.
The purported hack occurred between April and June.
Papadoulis was catfished by a fake Russian. Regardless Papadoulis was looking for Clinton’s state department emails.
Lets Say Papadoulis actually managed to acquire Clinton’s state department emails from Putin personally.
That MIGHT get Papadoulis is a small amount of trouble – though I doubt it.
It would have landed Clinton in jail for violating the espionage act.
I wish the impact of Mueller etc was systemic and long lasting.
But I doubt it.
Jay is right about one thing – too many of us WANT guys like Mueller who will do whatever it takes to get a conviction. We want people who see virtually everyone as criminals.
I have criticised you on this. We talk of business, – and everyone immediately jumps to greedy crooks who would do anything for money.
The reality is that business people are on the whole the most ethical of all.
That the ethics of judges, lawyers, politicians are far below that of business.
That is not because Business is like religion drawing the mother theresa’s.
It it because free exchange only takes place where there is trust.
In the real world we trust too much those we should trust least and too little those we should trust most.
Our policing problems are NOT with every person in law enforcement – except to the extent that top to bottom from police to prosecutors to courts we turn a blind eye to the bad apples.
But the most fundimental problem is that there is no outside review.
We can not expect the courts to police themselves, prosecutors to police themselves, the police to police themselves.
Just as we can not expect politicians to police themselves.
“Jay is right about one thing – too many of us WANT guys like Mueller who will do whatever it takes to get a conviction. We want people who see virtually everyone as criminals.
I have criticised you on this. ”
Sorry, I do not want more Comey’s, Mueller’s and anyone like them. I find them to be objectionable individuals that have yet to prove to me they are anything but political. Mueller will do anything to find something negative to continue this snipe hunt. It is for one purpose only, to elect a democrat congress and eventually defeat Trump if the democrats cant do it before.
The problem is not people want more, it is we have too many like them in key positions.
But when it comes to certain businesses, the same type of individual represented by Comey and Mueller run businesses that have a direct impact on peoples health and welfare. They have proven to me to be untrustworthy and willing to risk lives to increase profits.
I congratulate you for your open thinking that people will always do the right thing. Wished more people, including myself, believed the same. But working in healthcare for 35 years and hearing the stories I heard over the years poisoned my thinking about “,do right” people.
Mis statement – I appologize.
No I do not think you want more Comey’s.
What I was trying to say is that your trust is similarly misplaced.
There is nothing that should be trusted implicitly.
Not free markets not govenrment.
But for many reasons we should trust government less than free markets.
Among the many reasons – because free markets are free.
We can walk away from any exchange.
We can not do that with govenrment.
I strongly suspect that Mueller, Comey, McCabe, ….. all beleive they are decent people.
Comey quite self evidently wraps himself in the mantle of self righteousness.
It is a huge mistake to beleive that evil is only done by people who intend to do evil.
Or that it is never done by people who think they are good people, and doing good as they do evil.
I am very very cognizant of that in my own life.
I quite frequently hear and elsewell take a very righteous position. (I am far from alone in that even here – Jay, Robbie, Moogie, …… ?)
That is a very very very dangerous thing to do, if you are wrong, even partly wrong, they you are doing evil, not good, and that is difficult to see, and very very hard to escape.
No the effect of people like Mueller and Comey is not the same in business.
You can walk away from any free exchange.
You are entitled to demand whatever proof you think is necescary before agreeing to something.
In those very rare instances you are actually harmed you are entitled to be made whole.
And those you cite that manage to get past all those impediments and still cause harm,
Where there is no other remedy, governennt can step in.
Conversly there is little or no oversite of government of prosecutors of law enforcement.
“I congratulate you for your open thinking that people will always do the right thing. Wished more people, including myself, believed the same. But working in healthcare for 35 years and hearing the stories I heard over the years poisoned my thinking about “,do right” people.”
But that is not what I beleive or argue.
I am not arguing for blind faith. Nor for always.
I am arguing that it is rare that people who are engaged in free exchange, do so will significant deceipt or malice, because that is an unsustainable model.
We do not exchange with people we do not truest.
“Comey writes a book in the middle of the investigation to capitalize on the moment and make his fortune. Is that really what an FBI director does or former director does. Ore does a former director keep his mouth shut until everything comes out and then make public his positions.”
You and I are as one on Comey writing a book now (or ever for that matter).
That appals me, its nearly as undignified as trump himself. Whore.
But I am not going to damn the entire intelligence apparatus, FBI, CIA, etc. based on Comey, we Need that apparatus! Try living without it!
Well I tried to find a comment I made concerning this subject, but on this site it is almost impossible to find anything without wasting a lot of time. So I will just say that I said somewhere that the problem with these agencies is not the line employees doing their job daily, it is the career government employees appointed to positions that have screwed up these agencies. I may not have said it in that way, but that is what I mean.
Yes, we need the FBI, we need the DOJ and we need some other government agencies. What we don’t need is asses like Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey and others that have totally screwed up the reputation of those agencies. Mueller was also a career appointment and I put him right there with the others.
I want to see someone from law enforcement outside Washington, like a DA that has run a large office in a major city running the DOJ. I want to see a police commissioner from a large city appointed as the FBI director. I want to see people qualified based on their careers outside the federal government appointed to these positions and then I want to see them leave once that administration leaves.
But that will never ever happen as the swamp is a swamp that will always be a swamp.
“But I am not going to damn the entire intelligence apparatus, FBI, CIA, etc. based on Comey, we Need that apparatus! Try living without it!”
We do ? What is it that FBI does that can not be done by state and local law enforcement ?
To be clear – there are many good people in the FBI.
But it is also clear there are alot of not so good ones and the dream does NOT rise to the top.
CIA ? They constantly tell us that they have saved us from all kinds of things that they will not tell us about. What we know is about a long list of things they have botched – do I really need to list everything from Iran to Bay of pigs, to the collapse of the USSR to Sadam’s WMDS to … ?
I am not personally in a rush to completely eliminate these agencies.
But I think it is quite reasonable to scale them back and see what happens.
I do not think we will find ourselves any worse off with ever less FBI and CIA.
I do not think we will have any trouble living without them.
Those people in those organizarion want us to beleive their value, they want to beleive their value themselves – everyone wants to believe the work they do is beneficial. That does not make that true.
“What is it that FBI does that can not be done by state and local law enforcement”
The same problems exist with the FBI and CIA that exist with any government or large organization. I was in healthcare finance for 35+ years and over that time I witnessed organizations that grew somewhat and offered many new procedures, but the major growth in employment was in administrative functions. And most all of this growth was not needed, but those in those jobs found ways to justify their existence.
I do not question the need for a federal agency to investigate crimes that cover multiple states and foreign countries. We dont need state agencies from NY, CA, FL,and TX all investigating some crime that is now investigated by the FBI. But we do heed that agency determining if a crime occurred and if it did, then charges need to occur, unlike Comey and the Clinton server/email.
As i siad before, the problem is with The political appointments that lead these agencies, not with the folks in the regional office’s. The swamp will always be the swamp and swamps usually are always infested with infectious critters
“crimes that cover multiple states and foreign countries”
The US government does not have jurisdiction over foreign countries.
I actually think that the states are perfectly capable of dealing with crimes accross multiple state.
But to the extent there might be some need – it is small.
There are some real federal crimes – the clinton mail server would be an example.
Bank Robberies would not. Murders would not.
There are issued with political appointments, and yes there are more problems at the top
But the big problem – not unique to the fBI is that there is no real independent oversight.
Not at the top, the middle or the bottom. Not at the FBI or your local police.
.
http://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/berkshire-hathaways-charlie-munger-says-single-payer-healthcare-will-come-democrats-take-control-174110413.html
Remember Alfie Evans when this becomes a reality. Many new enrollees into Medicare are choosing Medicare advantage plans where the healthcare is covered by provate insurance plans. Seniors have figured out a government program run by the government is better run by the private sector. Guess there will need to be a few Alfie Evans in America where the government pulls the plug before the younger generation figures that out also.
The Senior Advantage plans are a combination of Medicare and supplemental insurance, either paid by the insured person directly, or through retirement pension, etc. to qualify, you still have to be covered by Medicare Part A and Part B, which deducts money from your SS monthly payment.
Jay stop telling me what Medicare does or does not do. I have an Advantage plan and know exactly how it works and how its funded. I also worked in healthcare finance and know what seniors had to pay as deductibles under the Part A and Part B benefits. For the same Part B premiums Seniors pay for traditional Medicare, they get a much better coverage plan with many Advantage plans. I have a minor physician deductible, do not pay for most drugs and if they are some new super duper make you feel good drug, the co insurance is much lower than Traditional Part D coverage. I pay no additional monthly premium, unlike traditional Medicare where I would have to pay a part D premium which on average is $35.00 a month.
So you tell me the program administered by the government is better than the government giving funds to the private sector letting them provide the coverage.
Alfie Evans died because the government did not want to pay the cost and then the bastards prevented the parents from taking him to the Italian hospital that agreed to treat him at no cost to the UK health system.
But I waste my words since no liberal would ever say anything the government does is not top notch good.
I didn’t say Medicare alone was better.
I noted that the Senior Advantage plans I’m aware of, like the one at Kaiser I just received info about, requires you to have Medicare Part B.
There is no instance anywhere ever of a government delivering a good or service that can be provided without government at lower real cost to anyone.
Noe will there ever be such an instance. It is actually impossible.
It presumes that government is capable of doing something more efficiently.
To be clear – when I say cost – I mean real cost – that is the money govenrment takes from the economy for something – what we are really paying for it, not what an individual consumer might think they are paying.
I would also note this does nto account for the fact – that like with Alfie – when government provides something – you get what government wants you to have.
If as in the case of Alfie – they do not think you should have some treatment – you do not get it.
You may not get it even if others will pay for it and government need not.
Government may littlerally use force to deprive you of something that you or others will provide you at no cost to government.
Value is what you need and what you want.
It is subjective.
When you deprive something of something they beleive they need or want, and give them something that they do not particularly need and want – we are less well off. No matter how affordably you deliver what people mostly do not want.
“But I waste my words since no liberal would ever say anything the government does is not top notch good.”
I think that may be a bit over the top, unless as soon as a “liberal” criticizes a government program you immediately throw him/her out of the liberal category by definition. Personally I think I am still slightly a liberal and I can easily criticize government programs. As well, I consider myself an liberal-environmentalist and I can find lots and lots of fault with state and federal environmental regulations; many are utterly stupid and counter productive or based on hysteria.
We really are NOT all alike, any more than conservatives or libertarians are all alike. Should I say that any libertarian will be pleased to flop around in his briefs to disco music at the libertarian convention? I don’t think so.
OK Grump, you got me. That statement was sarcasm directed toward are liberal Liberal posting on this site. So I will rephrase and say Some far left liberals have never found a government regulation or program they did not like.
Our resident liberal Liberal can say he also believes himself to be moderate left, but that is only because he lives in loony land that makes George McGovern look like Mr. conservative.
But would you not agree you are much more trusting of government than many others that you have identified as being right of you? Or is this a misstake on my part thinking that?
During my first 12 years in California I lived in Dana PointbSan Juan Capistrano, next door to San Clemente, in Conservative Orange County. Prior to that my last home for 7 years was north of Syracuse in small town Central Square/Constanta NY, A RURAL CONSERVATIVE Republican area, where no Democrat held ele ted office for decades.
In my present home near Griffith Park, the City Council Representative was Republican reflecting the neighborhood demographics.
Over all those years I never voted for a Democrat for President or Governor, until this last presidential election, when I realized what adisaster was facing the nation with Trump. I’m a Centrist. I don’t like far left or right, or bozos inbetween.
(Sorry about the run on spellings, I can no longer backspace on WordPress without my screen freezing)
Sorry if this is a repeat. Word Press just decided to close the response when I was almost finished.
Jay, I understand your position, but if you are centrist, then I would have to define myself within the furthest right wing 1% of the Conservative group.
1. Your hate for Trump allows you to accept Trump being removed from office with the voters action, without a crime being identified, charged or guilt found and personal deplorable behavior a basis for removal.
2. You support a government health system, almost from a rights position
3. You believe gun control is legal.
These are just the three recent differences in our positions. I know I can find more if I looked.
We may agree on other issues, but when a different subject is posted, it only reverts back to Trump which leads no where other than personal insults.
There are many subjects that can be debated based on facts, but that never happens and wont until Trump is out of office and then I fear the same treatment of the next president will take place as payback unless Christ return for that job, and then the agnostics and atheist would be running attack based on him being a liar and imposter.
There are many issues that can be debated on facts.
Trump is not the problem.
I have been here trying to debate facts years before anyone talked about Trump.
While the left right and even moderates ALL avoid facts like the plague – the left is by far the worst.
Look through the years of past posts.
A few od use debate facts, most of the debate and mostly from the left has been a constant spray fo ad hominem and other fallacies.
It is not even hidden.
I am not nearly so bothered by Trump’s style as you – not that I like it, but because I do not care much if Trump and the left and the media waste all their time spraying ad hominem at each other.
Yes, we all get it,
You walk like a duck, quack like a duck, but your not a duck.
In this last election we had two choices – bad and worse.
You can beleive we picked worse if you wish.
But the outcome has not been that bad.
If you ignore all the nonsense in the media and Trump/Russia which are fundimentally political noise.
Yes, If anyone – Trump, Comey, McCabe, Clinton committed crimes they should be punished.
But regardless of the endless news and investigations, the nation moves on.
Can you name something real that is worse than under Obama ?
I am hard pressed.
I can name a number of things that are better.
I would like to see even more still
2.8% average growth is not the 3.5 that was the norm for the 20th century.
But it is not the 2% that has been the norm for the 21st or the 1.8 that has been the norm for Obama.
Clinton actually getting elected would not have been the end of the earth either.
Without a democratic congress she was not going to be able to do anything more than Obama did. And the results would have been 4 years of 1.8% growth.
So we are better off. but not earth shatteringly so.
But there is one very important facett of change that has occurred,
The left spent 8 years telling us that 2% was the new normal, it was the best we could do.
Clearly that is a lie.
Excellent post!
My own additions.
In the 19th century through to approximately FDR “liberal” meant what libertarian means today.
Even through the 60’s “liberal” had a strong enphasis on freedom – liberty.
The Berkeley Free Speech moverment – undeniably far left. Undeniably liberal. Undenialably libertarian.
Advocates of government benovalance at the expense of freedom, have not for most of history been liberal. They have been progressive.
The american revolution was liberal. The french was progressive, Progressives have tended towards authoritarianism.
It is progressives that advocated for eugenics, and that Hitler, and the nordic democratic socialists learned from Oliver Wendal Holms, Wilson, Bell V. Buck, Trhough to baby Alfie, No Platform, Hate speach is not free speach, the modern intolerant left.
It is not liberal. It is progressive.
Dave, think you for providing an excellent differentiation between progressive and liberal. Especially the free speech movement. Compare that to progressives today that want to curtail free speech.
Now Jay is our ultimate progressive until otherwise proven different.
It is important to look at history.
Progressivism – under a different name, has existed since the French Revlolution.
As Progressivism it has existed since the late 19th century.
At that time there were both republcian and democratic progressives.
Post WWII when the horrors of the Nazi’s were exposed the LABEL progressive fell into disfavor.
Real Liberalism has also existed for an even longer period.
FDR co-opted the label liberal for progressives in the 30’s
Leaving real liberals somewhat homeless.
From the 30’s through the 60’s because of FDR’s coopting the term liberal – the left particularly pose FDR was more liberal than progressive.
Changes in academia in the 60’s that took decades to mature eventually subplanted the more liberal leftism of the 60’s with much more truly progressive leftism today.
What we called Liberal in the 60s was mostly actually liberal, what we call liberal today is progressive and very anti-liberal.
Despite my criticisms, I am not sure that Jay is a true progressive.
The problem is that progressives have not only taken over the left,
They have also shaped morality and ethics and even political tactics.
There is a civil war on the right right now – over tactics. And this does relate to Trump in a negative way.
Trump has adopted many of the tactics of progressives and used them against them.
Beyond that there is a large body of conservatives who would go further. The Flight 93 groups, who essentially see progressivism as a highly dangerous threat – which alot of us agree, but so much so that the ends justify the means – and these conservatives are fine with using all the ends justify the means tactics against the left.
“Our resident liberal Liberal can say he also believes himself to be moderate left, but that is only because he lives in loony land that makes George McGovern look like Mr. conservative.”
I do not see how you can be so completely far of base. Jay is very definitely NOT the far left. He believes that gun control is legal? That makes him a liberal Liberal who loves all government actions? Good grief, gun control IS clearly legal and requires no overturning of the 2nd amendment. Period. The courts have upheld many many gun control laws. That basic issue was long ago settled. Believing that is not being liberal Liberal. It is just living in the real world.
The idea that there is a strict simple highly limited and narrow meaning to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was exploded almost as soon as the Supreme Court began to fully operate. Your strict, clear limited-meaning horse clearly escaped the barn for good in the early part of the Marshall court period. Some conservatives have been looking in vain in the empty barn for more than 200 years. Boggles the mind.
There are many gun control laws on the books. There is no obvious Constitutional guidance that has an exact answer to most questions, including gun control. There are not enough words in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Amendments to the Constitution to spell out a clear answer to almost anything. That is why we have a court system in its layers that interprets law and sets precedent. The strict Constitutionalist position is a conservative fantasy, a wish or a hope for a simple clear world that is not possible. I’d call it a legal religion. In fact I would guess, and I am nearly certain that I am correct, that most people who believe in the strict Constitutionalist fantasy (which as only one of its tenets holds that the 2nd amendment clearly means that no gun control is legal) are religious and have been brought up to believe in a morally and legally clear world where a Bible or a Constitution have The Answers to how to live.
This is not one of my better pieces of communication, Way too many words, I’m rambling and repeating myself, but still, you get the idea.
Are you the “furthest right wing 1% of the Conservative group?” I would not go that far. I’d guess more like 15 to 20% believe like you do about the meaning of the Constitution. But yes, you are a far conservative mixed with a far liberal. That is to say, Libertarian. You are quite a thoughtful reasonable fellow in many ways in spite of that, but your ideas really Are highly conservative on many issues, gun control being a representative example, as well as your seeming belief that the Constitution, properly interpreted, only permits highly, highly limited government in general, along the lines of what T. Jefferson was hoping for before he became president and had to face reality and govern. (Yes, that was a run on sentence, bleh, bad writing.) At least 217 years of experience, by my count, have shown that a not terribly limited US government may or may not be a great thing, but according to precedent, its clearly legal. You are not going to get tyour horse back in the barn. The horse died long ago.
The NARROW part of the meaning of the constitution is the powers it grants the government.
Our founders had a major argument over the bill of rights.
Some felt it was necescary to explicitly protect some of our rights – they understood that it took nearly 1000 years for the british to secure their rights.
While others argued that the Bill of rights was a mistake – because it would be two easy to decide those were our only rights. They assured us that the constitution severely limited the power of the federal government. That everything else was a right. That was the reason for the 9th and 10th amendments.
I am not sure who was right – we can not see what would have happened without the Bill of rights.
I doubt the outcome would be any different. Because the core problem is that there is only so much a peice of paper can do to contain the ravenous apetite of government and politicians for power.
No broad gun control is NOT constitutional. More importantly it is not legitimate.
Government has no business interfering in what people exchange freely with each other.
The role of government is to punish us when we use violence to actually infringe on the rights of others.
And yes – unless you can tell me clearly using some understandable principles what the limits of government are – then you are a progressive – or atleast a statist, and you are the problem not the solution.
If you can not define the scope of government – then all freedom – not merely gun rights is transitory. Whatever arguments you make for gun control – can be made for pretty much any restriction on rights.
Britian is banning knives because london – with some of the strictest gun control in the world has a higher murder rate than any US city
If we can not be trusted with guns and knives – we can not be trusted with large soda’s or the health care decisions for our children.
The fight over gun control has near to nothing to do with guns – not for advocates for gun rights, not for its opponents. It is a fight over control.
It is a fight over whether some of us can tell the rest of us how to live. Whether we can own guns, or knives, or make the choices how to raise our kids, or what to eat of drink.
As to gun control advocates purportedly living in the real world – quite obviously they do not.
The bad news for gun rights advocates – there is little correlation between guns and violence. The bad news for gun control advocates – there is little correlation between guns and violence.
You might as well ban bedroom slippers for all the good you are doing.
NO! Absolutely – you do not live in the real world.
What you think works – doesn’t.
Nor is this inability to grasp the real world limited to guns.
Whenever you want to tell others how to live – you should think about the fact that you are so obviously wrong about guns, what makes you think you have a clue about anything else.
But you can not even grasp you are wrong about guns.
You want to “control” them even though the evidence demonstrates nothing good will come of that.
Merely to feel good about having done something about a problem.
It is not necessary to actually have done any good, just to feel that you have done good.
It is not necessary to be right, only to feel that you are right.
BTW you misunderstand both marshal, the constitution and reality.
The argument is not rooted in the constitution itself – it was decided before the constitution was written.
The concept that the law must mean what it says – is OLDER than the magna carta.
Marshall did not stand for the proposition that the constitution means whatever 5 of 9 old men say, but that politicians were not to be trusted to protect the people from constitutional mangling.
What is called originalism of textualism is really just the ancient understanding that the law MUST mean what it says, not what we wish it said.
Ultimately this is not merely a position of judicial philosophy or ideology, it is a fact that distiguishes lawlessness from the rule of law.
The moment that the courts cease imposing the law as written, and impose the law as their own views wish was written – we are lawless, as no two of us will ever agree on what the law should be, nor can mere concensus impose their idea of should on the minority.
The law must be as written because that is the only law that we can all know the same. And the only law that can be changed and only changed by our actually changing the law.
That is BTW how statutes are normally understood – and how they have been for over a thousand years.
From Hamurabi, through the Talmud and into Roman and then english law, the entire purpose has been to reach law that all understand and binds us all equally. Major conflicts have been fought for milenia to establish that the law is not what our lordes and masters decide on whim, and that none including our rules are above the law, or get to impose law on us without both our consent and specifying clearly what that law is that we are subject to.
We do not expect that laws barring murder are subject to the courts discernment of some new concept of what is a murder.
If we do not like a law – we are free to ACTUALLY change it.
That is not a “conservative” position, It is the only legitimate means of changing the law or constitution.
The purpose of Marshall’s supreme court is not to leave the meaning of the constution nebulous and subject to the vagaries of the political views on 9 jurists, but to remove it from the hands of politicians and ideologues and put it in the hands of people who were the ones with the reputation and tradition of relying on the words – not their ideology.
As to Ron – we do not decide left right based on some single issue.
Further we should be careful about deciding it based on some idea of consensus.
Only the left seems to think that the laws of nature, and human behavior are decided by consensus.
“As to Ron – we do not decide left right based on some single issue.”
Ah, but take a number of single issues, identify how certain individuals support or reject those issues and you have a good idea how to decide if that individual is progressive, conservative or Libertarian or some shade of red, blue, purple or yellow/blue/green.
Of course the correct term is strict constructionist, not strict Constitutionalist. My brain is old and fogs many things. But you get the idea.
And no, nowhere did I say that I love big government and all its laws, regulations, or ambitions. I just bear the news that tiny (Libertarian!) government is not a Constitutional mandate, according to centuries of legal precedent.
Shooting at the messenger, with full nitpicking by the chief nitpicker ( and I do NOT mean you Ron) may now commence.
Strict Construction is a expression how not merely the constitution but the law is to be understood. The Term dates back to atleast Jefferson.
Until relatively modern times – though the courts sometimes disregarded it, it was really the only standard of statutory and constitutional interpretation – and remains the only standard for statory interpretation.
Further the alternative is not the “living constitutionalism” of the left – it is patently absurd to have the meaning of the law change with the changing ideology of those at the top of the judicial food chain. Nothing could be a greater recipe for politicising the courts – it should be no surprise that our courts have become political.
If you do not start from the presumption that the law means what it says, you inherently end up with big government – whether you love it or not.
Small government is not a constitutional mandate ?
I think that 150 years of US history beg to differ.
Outside of war the size of the federal govenrment never exceeded 4% of GDP until FDR,
More than half of US history was accomplished with “tiny government”
“Shooting at the messenger, with full nitpicking by the chief nitpicker ( and I do NOT mean you Ron) may now commence.”
If you get your facts straight, you need not be concerned.
I do not think 150 years of sub 4% government is a nit being picked against your claim that there are centuries of legal precedent.
Prior to the mid 1930’s the courts universally struct down ALL efforts of the federal government AND the states to regulate commerce.
Using BOTH the contracts clause of the constitution and the “dormant commerce clause”.
Our founders – did actually deligate the regulation of commerce entirely to the federal govenrment – and then doubled down with the contracts clause to assure that the federal government never used that power.
Essentially the founders said – the states are barred from regulating commerce – by delegating the power to the federal govenrment where the constitution makes that power impossible to use.
There was a 5-0 Vermont Supreme Court decision, State versus Brigham, that turned life in Vermont upside down. It was obvious judicial activism, that led to the passage of a statewide property tax adn nearly a civil war in Vermont.
I hated the decision and the law that created the statewide property tax. I still think both are absurd and wrong. I fought like the devil, became a notorious public figure of dissent.
But the decision was legal, by definition. Even I accept that. The courts decided, and that makes it legal. Stupid, absurd, harmful, but legal.
I don’t like judicial activism, creating rights out of nowhere. I can be in sympathy with the strict constructionists in some ways. But to call the process of the law made by legislatures and judged by courts anything but legal is daft, a fight against reality. If the Supreme Court says something is legal, its legal. If there are loopholes in their language, room still left to argue, then more laws will be passed and more court cases will work their way up the court system. This does not mean that nothing was decided by the Court process. Something is always decided in a court decision, by definition.
Judges who call themselves strict constructionists of course exist and sometimes prevail in a particular battle. But even if conservatives got their most cherished dream and got nine strict constructionists on the Supreme court, they could not undo the fact that centuries of legal precedent and Supreme Court decisions long ago killed T. Jeffersons ideals of small, highly limited libertarian government. The Constitutional rights of one person come into conflict with the rights of others in morally and legally complicated ways. Exactly how those individual conflicts between opposing Constitutional rights are to be resolved specifically is not spelled out in the Constitution. Legislatures and the Courts system go through their processes and little by little legal precedent is created. That is the very definition of Legal in the USA.
Gun control is legal. Not every gun control law has been upheld, but the basic ability to regulate firearms itself is legal, Legal, LEGAL. Whether the laws are good, moral, or effective can be debated. But Jay is completely correct, gun control is legal. Its not a liberal, Liberal, LIBERAL idea, its just reality.
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/356087-gun-control-is-constitutional-just-ask-the-supreme-court
This really does not clarify my previous question. I already pointed out concealed carry, sawed off shot gun and machine gun laws. Yes, prohibiting guns at certain places is added, but that is not ” the right to keep and bear arms”. I suspect most private business, like banks, can prohibit guns and that would be legal, as it is with banks.
As for Armalite weapons, these weapons have been in the hands of civilians since 1959. For almost 40 years, this weapon was not the choice for murder. Something happened with society that has led to individuals wanting to inflict massive hurt on society and the have identified this weapon in todays society as the way to accomplish that feat.
Jay believes that this weapon can be banned. So lets assume that happens. A crack developed in the bill of rights. So, now the choice of weapon becomes the Glock 18 which holds 33 rounds. Attacks occur, 1/2 the bullets hit a target, now the calls occur to ban to G-18. Legislation passed, goes to SCOTUS, upheld based on case upholding Armalite ban.Now the weapon of choice is the Glock 17, holds 17 rounds. Same attacks, same legislation, same rulings.
Those who trust government will say that would never happen. Those like myself will say that is exactly what will happen.
And you can take that same scenario and apply it to speech or privacy. Once the door has been cracked, the government will drive a tank through it. They are trying with unlocking phones.If they get that, how far will they end up.
The AR-15 is not nearly the favorite that left wing nuts claim.
Handguns are by far the first choice of those involved in mass shootings and are nearly always present, and usually responsible for most of the harm.
Shotguns – usually sawed off are next, because they are probably the best mass cassualty weapon for most attempted mass killings.
AR-15’s are a very poor choice for most mass killings.
But they have become more common place because:
They are scary looking and that appeals to the shooters.
The left has singled them out for attention, making them even more appealing to the shooters.
If the left said we must ban bowie knives because mass killers have those,
mass killers would start carrying bowie knives.
I understand all this, but in the last few years more individuals have used the AR than in the past.
like many other comments I make, the point is missed. What has changed in our society today where mass murders are a way to accomplish a goal. I remember individuals meeting after school and settling arguments by landing 10-15 punches, blooding a lip or two, a black eye and things were settled. Now that same issue is mass casualties. WHY?
“I understand all this, but in the last few years more individuals have used the AR than in the past”
When you threaten to ban something you make it attractive.
“like many other comments I make, the point is missed. What has changed in our society today where mass murders are a way to accomplish a goal.”:
Nothing – long term trends – even in mass murders are DOWN not up.
What is up is reporting. This is not going to change.
As the world becomes more interconnected we are going to hear more and more of bad things that happen farther and farther away.
AS the media says – “if it bleeds it leads”. The media will go as far as they have to to find a story that will grab our attention.
“I remember individuals meeting after school and settling arguments by landing 10-15 punches, blooding a lip or two, a black eye and things were settled.”
” Now that same issue is mass casualties. WHY?”
These are not related. Mass Killings happened in the past too.
The overwhelming majority of these – 90% or more are not only mentally disturned but with the same mental disorder – paranoid schitzophrenia.
You do not need a gun to commit a mass homocide.
There is a reason that gun control laws have never had a demonstrable effect on mass killings or homocides – because the people who decide to kill others are not going to be dissuaded by a law.
They only known measurable positive effect of gun control laws – is some of those laws reduce the gun suicide rate. All people who attempt suicide are not fully committed. Access to a gun sometimes is the difference. But that effect is small.
Gun control does not work because its central premise – that you can stop a crime by makign it even more criminal is ludicrously false.
Dave, Dave, Dave..please read what I write. We could have teens getting cars once a month and running down 20-25 kids at bus stops. Or any other form where multiple deaths occur.
I used the AR because it was available when kids met and beat the crap out if each other to settle issue between them. They did not use any other instrument. Just recently has something chaged. W H Y?????
Little has changed beyond how far the news will go to report a story.
There is no relationship between school yard fights and mass murders.
Bullies MIGHT have contrinuted to why Cruz picked his school.
But Cruz was going to do something no matter what.
It is pretty self evident he is a paranoid schitzophrenic.
Virtually all mass shooters are.
All schitzophrenics are not mass shooters or even violent, so we must be careful.
The acceptance of and glorification of and transmission of acts of violence through media 24 hours a day.
Remember when the violence in a movie like Rebel Without A Cause was thought excessive?. Now blood and guts and mass killing of hundreds in innocuous Star War or X-Man movies is shrugged off as natural. And no more immoral than the death of a single person.
We’re doomed. There’s no way out of it for emerging generations. Luckily CostCo Irish Whiskey is still a bargain.
“But the decision was legal, by definition. Even I accept that. The courts decided, and that makes it legal. Stupid, absurd, harmful, but legal.”
Bzzt, Wrong.
We have had myriads of decisions – even at the US Supreme court that have been wrong – illegal, and subsequently reversed.
Plessy vs. Furgessor
Dread Scott.
All that a decision by a supreme court means that is the decision is supposed to be enforced by law enforcement – even that is frequently tenuous.
I would further note that Judicial activism and strict construction are not related.
Strict Construction is about how the meaning of laws is to be determined.
Judicial activism is about the role of the courts.
Libertarians and Federalists are both strict constructionists AND Judicial activists.
I would also note that Strict Construction covers a wide array of constitutional interpretation, most of which are little better than “the living constitution”.
Anyway decisions of Supreme courts are binding, they are not final, nor inherently proper or right. or “legal” whatever that even means.
I can not comment on your property tax claim – as alot depends on the details and the Vermont constitution.
While it is the UK it is fresh in all our minds eight now – would you call the decision of the UK courts to arrest the parents of baby Alfie if they tried to have their child treated in Italy “legal”, Right, Good, Moral ?
The entire point of “strict construction” is that the meaning of terms can not be arbitrary.
A recent Gorsuch decision would provide an example of why.
He rejected a deportation on the grounds that burglary is not obviously a “crime of violence”.
A central premise of law is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
That is only True when those who must obey the law can know what it means.
That REQUIRES that law be clear. Unconstitutionally vague means nothing more than you can not be expected to obey a law if you can not know what it means.
But the invalidation of ignorance means much more than that.
It means not only must the language of the law be clear,
but that the law itself must conform to societal norms – principles that we nearly all share and grasp intuitively.
No one can in their lifetime read all the federal laws that apply to them – much less state and local law. It is impossible to be informed about the law you must obey.
We do not obey the written law. We obey the principles that we all share.
We generally know right from wrong.
Something is wrong – not because it deviates from the words of some text passed by the legislature but because it violates near universally held principles that all of us know.
That is what legal actually means. That is what the “rule of law” actually means.
That is why the correct form of judicial interpretation looks FIRST at the text, looks next at the understanding of that text by those people who ratified that law – not those who wrote it, and finally looks at natural rights.
We argue over the details of the law – only accepting that the law as a whole conforms to those principles.
Ron: Mueller SP Investigation-
Benghazi was a 4 year investigation, zero indictments.
Clinton emails a 2 year investigation, zero indictments.
Whitewater started in August, 1994; first Starr impeachment referral FOUR YEARS LATER as part of the Lewinsky scandal.
The Mueller investigation has been 14 months, there have ALREADY been 23 indictments.
Mueller’s investigation is moving at the proper pace, considering all they are investigating.
Trump has already committed impeachable offenses under the constitutional definition high crimes and misdemeanors.
The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” refers to presidential behavior that causes injuries to society itself – it doesn’t have to be something illegal, but only behavior that harms the office, and the nation. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers that grounds for impeachment should be “Those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Trump’s constant lies and deceptions fall under that definition: they tarnish the office, injure the nation, and by default society as well, and are impeachable.
And for a more obvious impeachable act already committed by Trump, consult Blackstone’s Common Law – a dominant source the Founders who wrote the Constitution relied on for legal guidance, on which their understanding of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors are based.
High on Blackstone’s list of those misdemeanors is “obstructing the execution of lawful process,” including any “effort to keep the processes of the law from functioning properly.”
Do I have to note the long list of threats, firings, insults, denigrations of the investigation and the people conducting them from Trump daily to prove they are obstructive?
Did you see Nikki Hailey’s response today about Mueller’s investigation? She continues to be one of the few Republicans maintaining moral stature in the present administration.
Appearing on CBS Sunday Morning, Haley when asked if the probe should be terminated said “No, not at all… I mean, anything that comes like this, it should play its part. It should go through the process.”
Process. Takes. Time.
Jay, Nikki Haley, I have high opinion of her, but the longer she stays in the administration she does irreparable harm to herself. She needs to tell Trump to go to hell and resign based on how she has been treated.
If there have been high crimes and misdemeanors like you say, then lets impeach. If the democrats win the house, then they need to focus 100% of their effort in 2019 in impeachment hearings. Will they do that, or will they pussy foot around for 2years for political posturing for 2020?
I say the latter, but then I have a very negative view of elected government, so no one should be surprised.
Benghazi was congressional oversight.
It was not a criminal investigation.
They are entirely different.
No one alleges a crime was committed.
But gross incomepetence was demonstrated.
The actual Clinton email investigation as we are learning was less than 6 months long and the fix was in from the beginning.
Based on actual evidence it would be trivial to indict about a dozen people,
and lots of us want to know why that did not occur.
There was destruction of evidence (repeatedly) sworn falsifications (court documentsm not testimony) and several instances of perjury.
As Guliani noted Mueller can have the same conditions as Clinton got for her FBI interview any time from Trump.
Nearly all of Muellers indictments were of foreigners who never entered the country, and did not commit any crimes in this country.
They are ludicrously stupid. He would not even be able to get extradition from a friendly country for those indictments, much less russia.
They are indictments for the non-crime of posting on the internet.
“Trump has already committed impeachable offenses under the constitutional definition high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Absolutely – as has every president, because uiltimately there is no such thing, and no appeal from a determination of congress that whatever they call a high crime and misdemeanor is.
This argument is meaningless. At this point no one is seeking to impeach and leading democrats are begging idiots like you to shutup about impeachment because it is the stupidest thing democrats could do.
If you are going to play pretend law – then read the constitution.
All executive power and authoeiry is vested in the president.
Not the AG, not the FBI.
It is not possible for the president to engage in an effort to keep the process of law from functioning – so long as he is acting as president.
No one has EVER made an Obstruction claim against a president for excercising the powers of the president.
The Obstruction of Justice charges against Clinton and Nixon were for actions OUTSIDE their role as president.
Nixon directed that people outside of government raise money to pay off the Watergate burglars.
Clinton used the AK State Police to intimidate witnesses.
There are myriads of hostorical examples of Presidents doing far mote than anything you are claiming Trump did and no one even mentioning obstruction.
Bush I used the presidential pardon power to completely thwart an investigation that potentially could have lead to the whitehouse.
You do not just get to make up the law as you go along.
I was responding to Ron’s Complaint that the Mueller investigation was taking too long, you ditz. How did you jump to presidential authority from that?
You were talking about obstruction of justice too.
You can not obstruct “injustice”.
You can not obstruct a corrupt investigation.
You can not obstruct anything by doing things you are otherwise legally allowed to do.
You can not obstruct something by excercising (or not). powers that the constitution grants to YOU. Not someone else.
Contra the left (at the moment), the Constitution does not vest a single power of the executive independent of the president.
Mueller is not merely answerable to the president, he is acting using the constitutional powers of the president. Powers that the president may take back to himself as he pleases.
The constraint of the presidents constitutional use of his powers rests with the congress in impeachment, or with voters in 2020
“Do I have to note the long list of threats, firings, insults, denigrations of the investigation and the people conducting them from Trump daily to prove they are obstructive?”
Do I have to quote the threats Obama made ?
Yeah, quote the threats Obama made to have Mueller stop this investigation.
And show that Obama fired Comey.
THIS INVESTIGATION. Not what-aboutism. This-ism!
And when it comes out Trump is a money launderer (there’s no doubt of it unless you keep your head in the sand you are following the money-cash news, right.) are you going to claim that’s not impeachable?
Cut the stupid “aboutism” crap – it is just more left wing nut jargon to avoid the rule of law and get us the rule of man.
I will be happy to jail trump for your manufactured crimes – but if you are doing so, then we are going to jail EVERYONE who has done the same. Democrat, Republican, man on the street – YOU.
That is what the rule of law means – the same law, for Obama, Trump, Jay.
If you are actually prepared for that – great – pack your bags because I am sicking Mueller on you.
We can all have adjoining cells – you, me, trump, Obama.
Comey is not the first FBI director to be fired.
Further UNTIL he was fired EVERYONE wanted him to be fired.
I get very tired of hypcrits talking about St. James who are the same people who were saying he tanked the election for Clinton.
You keep telling me you are not a leftie.
Well you parrot the lefts arguments.
You push the same garbage.
If it walks like a duck.
Obama did not fire much of anyone – he had a government that was doing his bidding,
He did not fire people who were criminals and lied under oath.
Is that your standard ?
“when it comes out Trump is a money launderer ”
We have been hearing about all this stuff that is coming out for almost 2 years.
You have no credibilty.
2 years of trying to build a Russia Collusion case – and you can not even get a known Russian Government Representative and a Trump Surrogate in the same room privately prior to the DNC hack, or even prior to election day.
Currently your conspiracy depends on mind reading and faith.
As to money laundering:
1) that is not Mueller’s mandate.
2). You can only launder money that is the product of a crime.
If you can not allege a crime that made the money, you do not have money laundering.
That appears to be part of the reason that two different federal judges are getting dubious about the Manafort case before them.
Enormous parts of your entire anti-Trump meme are rooted in Trump or his people did things with Money that I do not like.
What other people do with their own money – is not your business.
I have NEVER tried to constrain what you can impeach Trump or anyone else for.
It is already pretty well established that “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever congress decides it means.
Of course it also means what voters decide it means when Congress oversteps.
That is also why the investigation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” must be done by congress.
Muller is a Special Counsel, the LAW forbids him from investigating anything but crimes.
In fact the constitution also forbids the investigation of anything but crimes.
What I am seeing with respect to money right now is that Hilalry and the DNC hid $84M in donations that were above the legal limits.
I have no problem with that. – the Election laws trying to control money are unconstitutional.
But you beleive otherwise, so are you prepared to Jail Clinton and her minions ? And much of the current DNC ?
On the Trump side – I see people spending their own money – often not as I would have, but still perfectly legally.
Did Trump get hundreds of millions from Russian Oligarches and all the despots int he world ?
No actually process does not take time.
Not a single significant claim in the steele dossier to this day meets the standard of probable cause.
To this day there is not only no meaningful basis for this collusion garbage – which is not even a crime, but after almost 2 years of investigating there is no one who can credibly claim they TODAY there is probable cause for the original investigation.
While there is a growning list of participlants in the investigation facing prosecution.
Did Ken Starr, Leon Jawarski, or any other FBI director, Special Counsel or Deputy AG ever face the prospect of perjury for their handling of an investigation of the president ?
Wow, an instantaneous process!
It must take place at the speed of light!
All the claims that are the basis of this investigation:
Were not verified and insufficient from the start.
Subsequently – despite all your time – none have been verified.
There is excellent argument – and likely eventually evidence that the new claims that have been added – did not come from the actual investigation Mueller was tasked with. That they are just Mueller sniffing wherever he can to find something.
They are Mueller investigating the man, rather than investigating the crime.
The former is unconstitutional, and corrupt.
An investigation that leads nowhere after 2 years, means the investigator is chasing snipes.
Giuliani – senile dementia?
I am not a big Guiliani fan.
But I think he may prove a good choice for Trump.
And I think the left’s “Oh My God! Guiliani has just admitted everything!”
is not working as they expected. Guilliani is changing the story, normally that is a mistake.
None of us actually know the truth and are unlikely to ever be able to find out.
Partly because the left is so fixated on why something was done rather than what was done.
You keep arguing that the wrong why, makes a legal act into an illegal one.
But that is not true.
By shifting the story such that Cohen was working independently but for Trump, Guliani has restored priviledge for Cohen/Trump and made it much harder for the US ADA SDNYC to get to Cohen.
Guliani ha apparently tried to get Trump to accept that Cohen would turn on him.
Trump has pretty strongly said he does nto beleive that.
I think that Trump is right, and I think that Guiliani is working to reduce the pressure on Cohen to flip, and to send as much of a message to him as possible – that Trump has Cohen’s back.
There is no reason for all of this to be secret.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-time-to-end-the-crazy-secrecy-of-the-trump-russia-investigation
McCarthy is now getting mad at Trump, for not ORDERING that DOJ/FBI fully comply with HPSCI
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/russia-report-redactions-cover-fbi-missteps/
What is coming out OVER and OVER, is that ALL the redactions, have NOTHING to do with national security or protecting confidential information regarding the Mueller investigations,
That what is being redcated is ENTIRELY the DOJ/FBI covering up its own bad and biased judgement and its own mistakes.
That pretty much everything that is reducated is ALREADY public.
That all we are dealing with is the difference between a news story of a leak or someone telling what they legitimately know, but can not prove – as an example Flynn and his lawyers either know all that is now being released – or Mueller is guilty of a HUGE Brady violation. Flynn and his lawyers are allowed to go public with what they know. about their own case
Forgotten in much of this is that the purpose of confidentiality during a criminal investigation is the protection of the rights of those being investigated.
NOT the prosecutors desire to keep things secret to create perjury traps.
Again secrecy is supposed to protect witnesses, subjects and targets from being pre-judged.
Anyway McCarthy is pretty damming.
And it is increasingly obvious that pretty much everyone involved in investigating Trump is LYING.
You can bemoan Trump’s misstatement of facts. but he is not using lies as the foundation of a criminal investigation.
Rosenstein is correct – the material he is protecting is a threat to the Mueller investigation.
But it is a threat – because it demonstrates that the investigation is corrupt to its core.
That is not a secret he is allowed to keep.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/john-kerry-iran-deal/index.htm
OK I need someone who has followed the issues with Flynn to explain the difference between what Flynn did that led to the FBI investigation and what Kerry has just been identified as doing.
What I know:
Flynn was being investigated for negotiating with the Russians concerning sanctions before Trump took office. An apparent violation of the Logan Act. Kerry has been negotiating without knowledge of the administration.
So, no one has been charged with Logan act violations, even Nixon when he undermined Johnson in the Vietnam war peace talks. Others worked against the Marshall plan.
But how much of this interference are we willing to accept before we say enough is enough. Flynn was working in reference to a new administration. Kerry is a former Sec of State with knowledge the common man does not possess and he is working against the administration. To me this seems to be one step short of a third world politics.
I would strongly suggest reading the recent Andrew McCarthy article I linked.
It not only addresses everything we actually know about Flynn,
It does everything by time line, addresses that we “knew” many things through leaks and we know KNOW the same through testimony. The Friday release of a far less redacted version of much of the HPSCI’s work is in laege part releated to Flynn.
We know KNOW that the Obama DOJ/FBI started a counter intelligence investigation of Flynn – that is a big deal, that almost certainly means there is a FISA Warrant.
That means they had to allege that there was probable cause that he had a criminal relationship to Russia.
Flynn is a big deal because – far more so that even Trump, many inside the Obama administration were OPENLY Out to get Flynn.
Remember he worked in the Obama administration. I beleive he was fired as DNI – that is the position Clapper held.
The central dispute with Flynn was that Flynn absolutely and vigoruously opposed the Iran Deal.
Many Obama aparaticks think that is the crowning acheivement of their tenure and Flynn was coming in with a wrecking ball to take that out.
We SEPARATELY have incredible bad blood between McCabe and Flynn, over Flynn providing a reference for an FBI SAC that alleged sexual harrassment on McCabes part.
So basically we have two groups that “hate” each other – and this is entirely independent of anything Trump related.
This is also while the full throated defense of Flynn.
Flynn is either an honorable 3 star general who has served with distinction and was canned by Obama over policy differences and then framed by the lingering Obama appointees to prevent him from reversing their policies under Trump,
Or Flynn is a criminal.
I would note that the rumored claims regarding Flynn have all fizzled.
As all of this gets more and more scrutiny what is increasingly obvious is:
Many people in the Obama administration were out to get Flynn.
They became even more so when Flynn became Trump’s advisor on National Security issues.
That got worse after Trump won – and the very people who worked to get rid of him, found they were going to atleast be briefly working with him wbhile he prepared to tear down the past 8 years of their work.
Their solution was to set him up, investigate him, and then prosecute him.
Someone is a criminal here – if you descide it is not Flynn, that means Yates, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, Rosentein, as well as several others.
The logan act is idiocy, It dates from the 18th century. No one has ever been prosecuted.
It is from the same period as the first alien and Sedition act. It is proof that our founders were capable of stupid and grossly unconstitutional idiocy.
Flynn certainly violated it, As has Kerry, as has Jimmy Carter, As has Dennis Rodman and ……
As I said it is unconstitutional garbage.
I am not interested in claims that Kerry violated the Logan act – because I am not interested in claims that ANYONE did.
I am very much interested in the warrant application for Flynn as that likely wreaks of politial corruption.
I would also like to know when Yates, McCabe, and Comey are all saying that by Dec 2016 the investigating into Flynn is dead, and he did not lie to the FBI – why Mueller was investigating Flynn at all ?
I would also like to know why Lefties think Trump was obstructing Justice when the DOJ/FBI had already admitted to themselves that the investigation of Flynn was at an end, and all Trump asked was to end it.
A US Citizen can do whatever they please with respect to a foreign country.
What they can not do is make promises for the US.
It is not /should not be illegal for them to do so, it is just not possible.
Just as I can not make promises for Apple.
Keep in mind I was against the Iran Deal when it was made – I believe they already have conventional nukes stashed away, like the kind we dropped on Japan.
But let’s get real with comparing Flynn to Kerry. Kerry wasn’t getting paid by the Iranian government prior to negotiating with them, or lying about financial relationships with them.
That was Flynn, who lied during his security background check about the Russian media propaganda arm, RT paying him for an appearance in Moscow, in which he was pictured dining next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Flynn claimed he was paid by ‘US companies.’
Nor did Kerry deceive his party’s VP with false narratives about his relationships with Iranians, or receive payments from them for speeches to Iranian businesses – Again, that was Flynn and Russians.
The REALLY BIG QUESTION you need to ask yourself: why did Flynn plead GUILTY to lying? If Mueller and the FBI manufactured a flimsy entrapment charge, why didn’t someone of Flynn’s eminence fight the charge? Someone of his military stature, with the President of the US lauding him as an unjustly accused hero, cops to a lying plea?
Doesn’t that tell you he’s trading off something way more serious for a much lesser charge? Wonder what it could be?
Jay, good points.
I opposed the IRan deal. So Did Flynn. He was fired for being to outspoken on something the administration wanted.
That is OK. He was fired for “disloyalty” – guess what, you can do that,.
I do not care about that.
You make alot of claims regarding Flynn – those claims were actually all investigated by COMEY, and found wanting. As with much of the garbage of this investigation – you need to quit believing something just because someone in the media reported it.
Can you prove the Moscow Pee story ?
So why do you believe the allegations against Flynn ?
Do you beleive that he and his son were kidnapping people and having them extraordinarily rendered in Turkey ?
I beleive it has been confirmed that Flynn was paid by the Russians – not that much for a speach.
So was Clinton. That is not a crime.
Then you play these – but they did not report it games – oh ? You know they had to report it ?
And you actually know they did not ?
For the most part you do not have to report income earned in foreign countries.
You DO NEED to report it as income WHEN you bring it into the US, but not until.
AGAIN the US does nto have global jurisdiction.
You are not subject to US laws in Russia.
You are subject to Russian laws.
You say Flynn was lying about financial relationships ?
You know this – how ?
Remember you can not trust anything in the media.
You need to quit channelling Louis Mensch.
Are you saying Kerry has gotten absolutely nothing from any foreign government for anything ?
Are you saying he has dotted every I and crossed ever T ?
Or are you just saying he is a democrat that you like he can do no wrong, and you do not like Flynn so he must have done something wrong.
You say Flynn lied in security interview ?
Then why is it that Comey TESTIFIED that the Flynn investigation was effectively over in Dec 2016 and they found NOTHING ?
Maybe because all you have to do is leak something to the media and it becomes the truth.
Actually read the McCarthy article about Flynn. What is increasingly self evident is that Flynn did not Lie to Pence. But that McCabe and Yates manufactured a lie out od something no one would have called a lie – failing to note that Kislyak brought up sanctions and Flynn dismissed the conversation. Most of us do not consider that to be a lie.
Do you think that Kerry every reports his actions to that degree of Precision ?
By that argument – Clinton had to be fired for misreporting Benghazi – because Al Qeda knew she lied and could blackmail her.
“why did Flynn plead GUILTY to lying?”
Everyone already knows that.
He had mortgaged his house, he was out of money, and now in debt paying for lawyers, and Mueller came after his family.
You seem to be under the delusion that innocent people never plead guilty.
It is quite common. Every single person on the exhonerated list – that is something like 1300 people who has been PROVEN beyond any doubt to be innocent, confessed.
“If Mueller and the FBI manufactured a flimsy entrapment charge, why didn’t someone of Flynn’s eminence fight the charge? ”
Because the left has literally criminalized helping these people.
What do you think woul dhave happened if Trump gave or loaned Flynn a Million for defense ?
Or the RNC ?
Or the Mercers ?
Mueller would have targeted them.
“Doesn’t that tell you he’s trading off something way more serious for a much lesser charge? Wonder what it could be?”
Are you paying attention ? We have spent two years and a small fortune bhounding people over NOTHING
This is what it tells you
Your link does not work.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/john-kerry-iran-deal/index.html
Did they catch Kerry in a lie yet?
No they caught him doing all the things that Trump and his people were purportedly not allowed to to – taking meetings with foreign governments.
So do we get a FISA Warrant on Kerry ?
If not – why is he different from Cater Page or Gen Flynn ?
Why is he different than any other Trump surrogate who might have met with someone from a foreign government ?
I do not think that Kerry is doing anything wrong.
Nor did any of the Trump people if they had actually met with the people that the left claims they did.
What if Trump had quietly met with Putin during the Campaign ?
How would that be different from Kerry ?
Ok point taken. So now one for you. Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI during a Logan Act investigation. Should Kerry undergo questioning by the FBI for a Logan Act investigation. Then we can dtermine if he lied under the same circumstances.
No! Neither Kerry nor Flynn should be investigated for Logan Act violations.
As Comey properly pointed out (though he applied it wrong) The FBI should not be investigating crimes that it would not prosecute even if they were proven.
I do not think anyone has EVER been prosecuted for a logan act violation.
If the Logan act was actually the root of the Flynn investigation – then Flynn should be completely exhonerated – not Pardoned, but actually cleared. And frankly those investigating him should all be fired.
Yes, question him and nail him if he violated any rules/laws/etc.
BTW, I didn’t like Fonda’s actions either, but still think she had the right.
And so did Lindbergh speak his mind.
I would not condemn any of these people out of hand, even if I have an opposite viewpoint, but alas no bully pulpit. Get fame, carry a big megaphone, but don’t f—- up U.S. official policy.
“If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and moral then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power. ”
Dwight Eisenhower 1956
Anyone think the current environment is anywhere near this position?
The purpose of government is not to advance causes.
It is to secure liberty.
That is it.
If you have a cause that is right and moral – form a civic group, a charity, a church.
Eisenhower was wrong.
HOWEVER Political parties should behave right and morally.
There are complex battles going on in the GOP over that.
The DNC has been confused ends and means for so long it is clueless about morality.
But the GOP is split – multiple ways.
Some of the NeverTrumpers are just neocons – like Chenney.
Some are people like Will, Goldberg, … who are deeply disturbed by the “flight 93” republicans who like democrats believe the ends justify the means.
Some are prepared to support Trump – when he sticks to justifiable means to acheive good ends, and oppose him when he uses bad means or seeks bad ends.
Some are just about winning. that makes them about as moral as democrats.
Many of those just about winning – the so called “flight 93” crowd see progressivism as so evil that it must be defeated by any means necescary.
They see no problem with fighting evil with evil.
It is actually possible to understand that view – without agreeing.
Jay rants about “whataboutism”
Well there is a large body of people on the right who are tired of being held by everyone to standards no one ever holds the left to.
Just another typical Lefty backing Mueller, Correct ?
Has someone made some claims about Mueller – or Comey, or McCabe or …
That are not fact ?
The evidence of past conduct is all fact. The evidence of past cases is all fact, the evidence of past faillures is all fact.
Mueller’s character is not being defined by conservatives, but by his own past actions.
The only ambiguity here is that it has taken a war on Trump to get many on the right to look at the failings of people like Mueller and Comey.
I do not doubt that many conservatives would be singing Muellers praises if he were charging after Clinton rather than Trump.
If you wish to tell me that many on the right are hypocrits – bravo!
But the problem of the moment is one for the left. Mueller’s character, as evidenced by his history and actions speak for themselves. And they do not speak to someone we should trust.
And Mueller alone is responsible for that.
Jay, they should make many sick, but also let’s not get carried away and make him a saint. Any of these big investigations can be guilty of cutting corners and abusing accused and witnesses. It ain’t all black and white.
Apparently even the indictments of the Russian Businessmen are in trouble.
In Mueller’s mass indictment of Russian’s Mueller indicted 3 russian businesses.
It is not possible to jail a foreign business, but it is possible for a foreign business to defend itself against an indictment. One of the Russian Businesses Mueller charged has decided to defend the indictment. It is asking for its day in court.
Mueller has been caught off guard by this and is unprepared to procede, and is stalling, and the DC judge is not all that interested.
Their law firm is demanding discovery from Mueller.
Mueller is actually arguing that he is not sure they were properly served – in other words that the bussiness and its law firm can not defend itself in court – because it has not actually been properly charged. That is a stupid claim. As the judge noted that is an objection proper to the defendant not prosecutor – just serve them in court,
Mueller has a choice between dropping the indictment – which casts all his indictiments in doubt or proceeding with a case that he probably can not win.
He has a defendent who has no legal risk except money, who can make Mueller prove his case,
He has indicted a foreign business, for actions that mostly took place outside this country.
Where properly he has no jurisdiction – but even if the court allows him to elide the juridiction problem, he still has the fundimental problem that he needs the cooperation of Russia – and that is not happening. Mueller is faced with prosecuting his indictment based solely on the evidence and claims used to get the indictment.
You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich.
But you can not get a trial court to convict one.
I think the difference today with Mueller compared to Nixon (Watergate) and Clinton (Getting Monika’ed) is the news agencies and reporters. Fox and MSNBC did not start until 1996, so the 24/365 news coverage was not there. Facebook and Twitter were in the minds of school kids. There was not the constant need to report something like there is today.
Basically the news reported whatever came up in a couple minute segment of the 30 minute newscast and moved on until something concrete developed and there was some there there.
Today we have non stop coverage with any Tom Dick or Harriett being able to get coverage on the many cable channels or wedsites. One can find anything that supports their position and post it on Twitter or Facebook and because its on the internet its the truth.
I say I am going to wait and see what actually develops and I get chastised for not taking a stand against Trump.
I also chastise Mueller and his minions because they leak information that supports what they’re doing. They can do that because the journalist have much lower standards for reporting a story than years ago. There are too many that call themselves journalist, but Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow and those like them are not journalist, they are talking head personalities that have lowered the standards because no one wants to be second in reporting a story.
When the president, any president, is under investigation, I think there needs to be gag orders on all individuals associated because we have seen the damage the nonstop coverage can cause. I worry that Jay is going to have a Cerebral Hemmorage before this is settled.
One of today’s stories is that Buzzfeed provided massive amounts of assistance to democratic Super PAC’s and steadfastly refused to provide similar assistance to conservatives.
If as Jay keeps claiming anything that has a political consequence is a regulated political contribution – then how is the millions worth of information assistance that Buzzfeed provided to democrats not far more criminal than Cohen getting Daniels to sign an NDA ?
The actual answer is neither are or should be crimes.
Just as a candidate should not have to report the amount of toothpaste they use in an election – as a brighter smile and cleaner teeth is an electoral advantage too.
In truth we should entirely scrap most of our campaign laws and all of our campaign finance laws.
Government can assure that only people eligable to vote do, that no one is threatened or subject to force in order to alter their vote, that only those allowed to vote do, as well as reasonable time and place constraints. Government must assure that from the moment a vote is cast that it can not be lost, altered or that illegitimate votes are added.
That is pretty much it. The rest is up to us.
That Stormy NothingBurger has turned out to be a full course banquet.
(Already confirmed by other sources)
I would suggest actually bothering to look at facts, rather than accepting insinuations from the media.
Columbus Nova is a US OWNED and CONTROLLED investment firm, strongly associated with entertainment, computer games and music.
What you are finding is that Cohen has actual clients that pay him money.
Of course all of this is piddling compared to the millions the minions associates with the Clinton skim.
What does it take before you grasp you are dealing with a stupid game of lies whispered down the lane
We have a claim by Daniels attorney, that Coen receieved money from a US owned an controlled company that is “linked” to an Oligarch – who happens to be Ukrainian, who MIGHT have close times to Putin.
I suspect that Cohen did receive the money – legally from Columbus Nova – as well as AT&T, I beleive both have confirmed that.
That is about the end of the truth to the story.
Oh, and all this happened AFTER the election. So no campaign laws were ruffled.
DDuck -did you see this.
A convincing theory?
If true, and Trump paid for an NDA abortion, and other Stormy money came from Russians close to Putin, do you think Dave will consider that sufficient sliminess to impeach President DicHead?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/theory-playboy-model-had-affair-with-trump-not-broidy.html
Lets say this is true – something that is extremely far fetched.
All you have is another NDA.
I would suggest that if Brody did not have the affair then – the NDA does not prevent disclosure about Trump. it prevents disclosures about Brody.
I would also note whereever this is coming from, somebody is in huge legal trouble.
There are very few people who could legitimately have this information at all
Aventti as Daniels lawyer through discovery, and the SFNYC ADA.
Both would be ethically bound not to reveal it.
So either it is a lie or an ethics violation and/or a crime.
My guess is a bit of both.
You seem to go all frothy when Trump is not precise enough for you in his remarks.
But you credulously accept media stories without foundation,
and that if not lies are likely crimes.
BTW 1.6M is a reasonable settlement if there was a child or an abortion involved.
The two purportedly know
@popehat
“Whether or not it’s a crime and however you characterize it, the President’s fixer getting half a million from Russian through a dummy entity AFTER THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION HAS BEGUN is stupid in a way it would take a poet to capture. I cannot, as my daughter would say, even.”
Ken needs to get a grip.
We have a whisper down the lane story, that White has presumed to be true and further presumed that Cohen knew more at the time than he could possibly know.
Unless you think Cohen knew about FISA court Warrants during the transition.
Columbia Novus owns computer games and things like Guitar Hero.
Watergate was about following the money.
Trumpgate will be about following the debt!
The money we actually know about leads to the DNC and HFA.
Now we know what McCabe’s wife got for all that huge political contribution.
Her husband tanking the Clinton email investigation.
If you are going to try to make something of money – you actually have to connect it directly.
If you have 27 levels of inuendo the story becomes implausible.
Further people do not commit conspiracies involving dozens of people – there odds of keeping a secret decrease exponentially with the number of people involved.
A rumour of an obscure multiparty conspiracy – is just that, a rumour.
That’s right. Just put your fingers in your ears and stamp your foot.
What am I hiding from ?
There have been myriads of these claims by the left – none has paid off.
Maybe we now know that Cohen – who only a few days ago only had three clients – Trump, Hanity, and somebody we don’t know.
Now we know that AT&T is a client as well as Columbia Novus.
Avanatti is now being investigated by the IG with regard to how he acquired Cohen’s bank records. That might be legitimate – but sharing them is not.
Avanantti is trying to claim privilege – need I note privilege does not cover crimes.
So that proves one story false. I beleive AT&T and Columbia Novus have both confirmed hiring Cohen.
Columbus Nova is a Fully American owned Business.
Vekselberg is a client. They manage money for him.
Other Clients include a former israeli Prime Minister.
There are also links to Qatar, and serious investments in Napster, and Rhaphsody and the entertainment industry.
Yes, it is possible that you have found an actual link to Russia – more than thrice removed and after the election.
It is possible that Cohen was in Prague in August – but based on the actual evidence – it is highly unlikely.
One of your problems is that you start – entirely absent any evidence with the assumption that Trump has been conspiring with the Russians all along. You do not bother to question whether that assumption makes the least sense. And then you assume that anything that you hear about that in the remotest way Might support that does.
As a result you are constantly being disappointed by facts. You wait breathless for a shoe to drop, and none does.
It is possible that Vecklesberg arranged to have Cohen paid.
That would be disturbing, but not likely to be criminal.
It is likely that Cohen was being paid – even by AT&T because of his proximity to Trump.
Bothersome – but do you really think Goldman Sach’s paid Hillary 250K for her insights on investing ? Or The Russians paid Bill 500K for some flowery prose ?
Or are only those affiliated with democratic regimes allowed to leverage influence for money.
Presuming you can actually tie Vecklesberg to this – which I doubt, what does that change ?
The Clinton’s and podesta group get money from shady people all the time.
You continue to wish to try to manufacture a crime that is not there,
If you want to make such a crime – fine, we can lock up the entirety of congress and the DNC.
You do know that during the 2008 election Obama was getting millions in credit card donations from the mideast and Europe.
What I am seeing is the left slowly imploding.
What I am wondering is how is it that you think you are not on the left ?
Guys, I have a question for both of you.
Jay, how do you have the time to find all these twitter accounts that report information on Trump
Dave, how do you have the time to research all the information concerning Trump, the investigation and all the other issues surrounding him?
I am retired and even if I was interested, I dont have the time to do what I need to do and spend time finding the type of information you share.
First I will start with what I do NOT do.
I rarely listen to Fox, MSNBC, CNN, most of the political talking heads.
They do not know much about anything, their process does not allow for real examination of issues.
I DO follow people who have developed a reputation for actually knowing what they are talking about – left and right. Most of those are not traditional journalists.
They are people like Andrew McCarthy who can from the US ADA’s office and now do legal analysis as journalists.
I am interested in people who have demonstrated integrity – regardless of their political position.
On rare occasions those are journalists – I have a great deal of respect for Glenn Greenwald.
Sometimes I disagree on issues of oppinion, but he rarely gets facts wrong.
I am also strongly of the oppinion that the traditional big media is dying.
Maybe that is because I do not follow them.
Regardless, we live in a world today where an amazing amount of information from some tremedously high quality sources is available to all of us.
It is easier to talk about that in the context of economics.
Who would want to get their information on economics from some reported at the Rolling Stone or CNN or even WSJ when you can go to John B Taylor’s blog, or Greg Mankew or Robert Barro, or if you must Paul Krugman – particulary before he became a shill.
Some of these guys write something interesting every day – most only once a week or a month, and some only a few times a year.
But no matter what they are 10,000 times more informative than typical journalists.
It is harder to find the same kind of quality information on “politics” – not because it does not exist, but because there is so much crap that does.
When I do read – which is by far the primary way I get information, something from the media, I read it carefully. Oddly most modern journalists have a very high code of ethics. Particularly the print journalists.
That does not mean they will not lie to you. It just means you should read what the write very carefully. The words they choose to use nearly always have meaning.
Reaf what they ACTUALLY say – not what they want you to hear.
The recent Cohen story talks about Cohen being “linked” to a Russian Oligarch.
A journalist would not use the word linked, if they could ethically use something stronger.
So check it out – Columbus Nova is owned and operated by americans. They are a profitable private investment firm. The Oligarch is an investor.
I know Jay seems to think all money is inherently evil and it is trivial to get money from Putin into Trump’s pockets – but it is not.
This is a company that needs to (and does) show a profit. 500K off the bottomline had better produce a value.
Anyway the point is read what is written, notice what is not written and google things when they are not made clear.
When reporters write chosing words very carefully – and use words that say little but imply alot, you can be nearly certain – you are not getting the whole story. If they could say more, they would.
When you read something that sounds contrived or spun, or where the obvious words – the words you want to hear, are not the words the reporter writes – check it out.
BTW that process of critical thinking an analysis is no different whether you are dealing with a left or right source.
But start by being skeptical.
If you are looking for the means to get the best quality information on politics with the least amount of effort, I would start with RealClearPolitics.
They are a news agregator, they pull both left and right stories, Alot of their material is from sources with a reputation for integrity rather than the top talking heads.
When perusing RCP I tend to skip the stories from MSNBC or FOX, or Newt Gingrich or Nancy Pelosi and look for the people who are closer to the sources that are used for the stories higher up the food chain.
I use alot of sources besides RCP, I have probably 500 blogs that I check atleast once a month on subjects like climate, economics, and some other issues that do not come up here.
I should note one other thing – I read fast and I retain alot of what I read (except when I read for pleasure then I read slow)
Influence peddling.
“Might as well say it: Trump or his circle almost certainly signaled the companies (like AT&T, Novartis, and Veckselberg’s LLC Columbus Nova) that Cohen’s Essential Consulting was the shell co. through which to funnel $$$ to Trump and his Company in exchange for Trump’s favors.”
@tribelaw
Compared to the Clintons and Obama, this is small beans.
What about ISM is your response to hear and now ISM?
TYPICAL SMUCK-ISM
The problem is yours not mine.
I have stated before repeatedly -0 if despots and oligarchs and Goldman Sachs wish to give the Clinton’s millions of dollars That is fine by me.
The same with respect to Cohen
I am not going to go into paraxysms of fake outrage because – “oh my god! Cohen actually had clients and got paid!”
The crime with respect to the Clinton’s is that CF had an open channel to the State department.
CF employees or CF/State dual employees were providing donors with access and services that people going through channels could not get, or could not get quickly.
It is not the money I care about – it is the government corruption.
So do you have that ? Not that I can tell.
Thus far you have someone you do not like getting paid, which you also do not like.
Further what you have is great hypocracy – on your part.
We have the evidence regarding CF that donations resulted in better service from government – pay for play.
Do you have any such thing with Cohen ?
I heard you defending Clinton, claiming there was nothing there.
Why not the same full throated defence of Cohen ?
Or are your principles fungible depending on who you apply them to ?
What is most interesting in this is that it demonstrates that our educators are imposing their values into their grading.
We all get something different from what we read. We may not get what the author intended.
When a teacher grades a students essay on some other work, it is important that their grading is not a reflection of their personal take on the work – that ideology does not taint grading.
If you want to change a country politically long term, you begin with the children. One can temporarily change an adults thinking when it developed after adulthood, but that can change back. Educating the children from a younger age takes much more to change their minds.
More misguided criticism from the Left?
Oh, this from the Conservative Center:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html
Testing. Yesterday a message told me I could not comment, I’m seeing if the clog has dissipated.
I can once again comment.
Money, money, it might sink Trump and company faster than a cigar and a blue dress.
Any other less cluttered threads we can move to?
Jay, good question, but then we need to take Mr. Mucous along so he can explain everything to us and tell us where we are wrong; then less cluttered becomes bloated. 🙂
I think of Dave/John as a useful tool, like a heavy bag at the gym, good for daily punching and pounding to work off excess calories. Better than shadow boxing.
🥊🥊🥊💪💪💪
I would suggest watching the Haidt video, because your not in the gym, your not working on heavy bags, your in the gutter.
Thinking of Dd’s mucous remarks and Haidt’s comments,
some of us are trying to discuss and understand serious issues – and you na dDD are hocking loogies.
If DD is bother by mucous – he should avoid mirrors. AS should you.
If you want an intellectual workout – make and actual argument.
Sorry John/Dave if I hurt your feelings.
But I took you at your word (repeated more than once) that Ad hominems didn’t upset you. From now on going forward no more heavy bag body blows; just rat tat tat ‘Wake Up’ slaps to the head, like Char in Moonstruck.
“Sorry John/Dave if I hurt your feelings.
But I took you at your word (repeated more than once) that Ad hominems didn’t upset you. From now on going forward no more heavy bag body blows; just rat tat tat ‘Wake Up’ slaps to the head, like Char in Moonstruck.”
Back to the omnicience with respect to the feelings and thoughts of others.
To the small extent I am upset – it is because I actively seek out real thoughtful argument, and you disappoint me, that is my problem.
Did you actually listen to Haidt’s remarks ?
Forget me – the way in which you convesrse is pretty much guaranteed to lead to conflict and division.
Out divisions are a big issue today. The left pretends that those divisions are caused by the neanderthall nature of the right.
Absolutely there are knuckle draggers on the right.
But the real world fact is that over my lifetime – over the past 40 years, over the past 20, 10, the right has been moving left. Maybe not as far as I would like on every issue, but still moving left.
The huge problem today is with the “radical left”, but even more so the fact that the more centrist left – as well as moderates does absolutely nothing to check the “radical left”.
Our divisiveness is routed in the fact that far too much of the left – conducted discussions as you do.
Their response to any argument is to return insults – slurs. And then they wonder why Trump won the election.
I do not like the way Trump speaks. But I do grasp something very important that you do not.
Trump answers insults with insults. He is not the source – you and the left are.
Here is Prof. Haidt, Frank Bruni on Charlie Rose (With a substitute) directly addressing your response
“That is a slur – not an argument ”
Or you could just read JS Mill “On Liberty”.
Maybe you shoudl try to learn something besides how to defame people – or atleast learn to do that better.
“If you want an intellectual workout – make and actual argument.”
Dear confused: I made an actual slur, and it is true. It was not an argument, it was a slur.
You ruin the thread with TOO MANY words and comments. You say, “that’s not true”, then that would be an argument. —– Just keep it short and on point without pulling in extraneous points.
“Dear confused: I made an actual slur, and it is true. It was not an argument, it was a slur.”
Refreshing honesty.
“You ruin the thread with TOO MANY words and comments. You say, “that’s not true”, then that would be an argument. —– Just keep it short and on point without pulling in extraneous points.”
Am I using force against you ? Nope ? Then there is not argument – you are just wrong.
Outside of the use of force, your life is your own.
If something is “ruined” it is either
The consequence of someone using force
not yours and not your business
The consequence of your own thoughts and actions.
I can not ruin something for you that is actually yours.
I would suggest that resporting to slurs reflects some serious problems in your own life, having nothing to do with me or TNM.
Regardless, neither I nor anyone else is “ruining it for you”
Lets pretend that Cohen actually received money from a Russian oligarch.
How does that bring down Trump ?
Particularly given that the Clinton’s got hundreds of millions from Russian Oligarchs ?
I am not particularly interested in people who will not use the same standards for those on the other side of the political fence as they do for their own.
Rudy took sudden leave of from his law firm yesterday.
“WASHINGTON — President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, abruptly resigned from his law firm, Greenberg Traurig, the firm announced on Thursday, then promptly undercut his recent statements defending the president.“
Think this had anything to do with it?
Rudy’s firm says: “We cant speak for Mr. Giuliani with respect to what was intended by his remarks. Speaking for ourselves, we would not condone payments of the nature alleged to have been made or otherwise without the knowledge and direction of a client.”
To refresh your memory, Rudy claimed he regularly paid sex act hush money to clients as a common part of his law practice. His firm obviously didn’t agree.
“To refresh your memory, Rudy claimed he regularly paid sex act hush money to clients as a common part of his law practice. His firm obviously didn’t agree.”
It would help if your posts were not so ambiguous.
Are you saying that Rudy said that Rudy regularly paid money to thrid parts to keep quiet about sex with Rudy’s clients ?
If that is the case – GT can say – that is not business that we wish to participate in.
Though it is quite hard for a lawyer to get rid of an existing client – even if they do not follow their advice.
But GT can not impugn their clients. They can not do so if as in this case the activity is legal.
They can not do so if it was not.
Gerry Spence – even though we do not share much political common ground is one of my hero’s.
But even he said he regrets refusing to take Timothy McBeigh as a client.
Everyone is entitled to the best defense they can get. Regardless, of what they are accused of, regardless of what they have done.
It is not unethical for a lawyer to serve heinous clients.
It is always unethical to impugn your clients.
I have no idea what Rudy was doing going on Hannity and making the comments he did and then appearing on more talk shows and having diarrhea of the mouth concerning Trump, but one thing certain, I would not want him representing me in any criminal case. Seems like the law firm he worked with thought the same.
My guess would be they parted ways not because of What Rudy was doing, but what he was saying.
The purported remarks of the firm were an ethics violation.
But Rudy asserting he made payments was also problematic.
I doubt the firms clients want it publicly stated that they payed to get NDA’s for sex.
All that said Rudy’s comments do not surprise me.
Outside the business world I would think that Sex NDA’s would be the most common form.
Your post has insufficient detail to comment on.
Regardless, it is not the role of law forms to “condone” or not the past actions of other lawyers who are not their clients.
In fact it is not their job to “condone” the actions of their clients.
It is to advise the client, and then to defend them regardless of whether they followed advice.
Presuming that your quotes are correct – Greenberg Traurig committed an ethics violation – a pretty serious one.
Dear doubly confused: Do you even read what you write here. You do not affirm or deny my accusation that you use too many words and comments, you just obfuscate as usual.
‘Dear doubly confused: Do you even read what you write here. You do not affirm or deny my accusation that you use too many words and comments, you just obfuscate as usual.”
You are correct. Your accusation does not have merit worth responding to – though I have repeatedly in the past.
Theres is no such thing as “too many words” or “too many comments” in the context of blog posts.
That you think there is, reflects your own inability to engage in critical thinking.
I read your comments, and respond as I deem appropriate.
I did not think noting the obvious was necescary.
Your accusation is not merely false but obviously false.
“Your accusation is not merely false but obviously false.”
I take that as no to the question. You say you do not talk to much, that “my accusation” is doubly false. Interesting.
Non-sequitur.
What I have denied is that there is such a thing as too many words or too many comments.
You are pretending that an opinion which can not have a factual basis, is a fact.
There is no need to go beyond that error.
“What I have denied is that there is such a thing as too many words or too many comments”
Obviously incorrect in social situations and interactions.
Or do you think it’s OK for guests at a wedding to make negative comments to the bride about her dress as she walks down the aisle?
You seem to lack a balanced sense of social restraint when it comes to opinionated loquaciousness.
“Obviously incorrect in social situations and interactions.”
Obviously wrong – substituting oppinion for facts,
“Or do you think it’s OK for guests at a wedding to make negative comments to the bride about her dress as she walks down the aisle?”
You confuse common with correct.
We have addressed this many times before. You continuously repeating the same error does not make it into truth.
This is Rick’s blog. He can have whatever rules he wishes, Just as DailyKOS can and ThinkProgress.
There is no “right” set of rules.
Some people get married naked by the ocean. That is not “normal”, but there is nothing wrong with it.
If you are going to try to force fit the rules for bridal ettiquette to TNM – you spew insults fat more copiously than anyone else – wouldn’t that make you the most offensive ?
CNN provides Anderson Cooper with an hour of airtime – you and I do not even get microseconds. And AirTime at CNN is an actually limited resource.
You keep trying to make the rules as you go along, to convert your person irrational feelings into universal law.
You are a gigantic walking violation of Kant’s catagorical imperative.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
“You seem to lack a balanced sense of social restraint when it comes to opinionated loquaciousness.”
I have zero interest in your concept of social restraint. Nor your pretense that rhetorical flourish is an adequate substitute for argument.
You’re the continuously repeating error, Dave.
“You’re the continuously repeating error, Dave.”
If that were the case you would be able to point out that error.
Your argument would not have flaws so large your could drive a battle cruiser through them,
and you would be able to make your arguments with facts, logic reason,
Not bizzarre analogies that are not even close to matching what you seek to apply them to.
You confuse etiguette that is specific to a given circumstance with broad rules,
worse still your analogies are a poor match for the facts.
A wedding is not a blog.
Reciting facts is only insulting – if you are on the wrong side of the facts.
I would imagine that atleast some of the guests at a wedding would make negative remarks about the wedding gown if it was littlerally made of garbage bags.
Please learn the meaning of words.
When you misuse them you destroy our ability to communicate.
You wish to make ludicrously stupid accusations regarding the impossible consequences of the posts of others.
Misusing words harms everyone’s ability to communicate – even think, as most of us use words to think.
Obfuscate is not a synonym for illuminate.
It means to try to hide something.
I am extremely open, about facts, about what I believe. I am not hiding anything.
I do not think the same things are important that you do.
I do not understand why you think the things you think are important are.
I do not care about most of the things you think are important.
These are values and attributes I share with many other people
And again they are not being hidden.
The only hiding I am aware of is that of hiding the relentless failure of the left.
Nothing else that has failed so badly is still echoed l so stupidly by so many – even those outside the left.
I am probably the only one here that thinks this is a good reaction from Trump pulling out of the Iran deal. But its been over 70 since WW2 and America should not be the free worlds only cop anymore. Protect yourself first and dont expect America to be your first line of defense.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/merkel-europe-can-no-longer-rely-on-us-protection/ar-AAx4AwV
But this Iran withdrawal with its added sanctions for our supposed allies to effect them economically IS US policing. And the allies aren’t going to sit back and let Trump fuck them like this.
Iran nuclear deal: France condemns US move to re-impose sanctions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44079831
I did not say our imposing sanctions on companies doing business with Iran is good. I only pointed out I think this action making the EU take notice that America should not be counted on to protect their asses from every threat was a good move. But that is the Libertarian in me speaking and that we should not be involved everywhere in the world.
Now to address your new issue. We have to do what we believe is in the best interest of America. If that is sanctions on Iran and companies doing business with them, then that is a decision the administration needs to make. Likewise, companies doin business with Iran need to make that same decision. Is it in their best interest to do business with Iran?
So far I agree with actions taken. How you fix a ____ up agreement like this is difficult.
This is why congress needs to close the loopholes that presidents have found. Agreements like these should require congressional approval, just like the Paris accords should have had congressional approval. It is ridiculous to think one president can agree to something this bad and not think it could be reversed. We do not need presidents that rule by executive orders and backdoor agreements, Democrat or Republican!
There are things congress needs to do.
But we are not dealing with “loopholes”.
We are dealing with the unconstitutional and lawless actions of a prior president.
While Obama was the poster boy for this.
He is not alone.
All presidents have exceeded their authority.
Modern presidents particularly so.
You say “tomayto”, I say “tomahto”. Exceeding your authority to you is my ” loophole”. Whatever you call it congress needs to do their damn job and prevent it in the future. What the hell are they getting paid to do other than waste taxpayer money?
So France “condemns” the US for sanctioning a country that is dishonest in its agreements, continues to sponsor terrorism, seeks WMD’s and ICBM’s ?
And you think this makes France look good ?
How would you feel if France condemned the US for sanctioning child pornographers ?
There is an argument that can be made that as flawed as the Iran deal is, it is better than no deal.
I do not agree, but I can respect those who make that argument.
Regardless, you must make that argument – not assume it to be true.
I agree with neither the deal, nor with the sanctions. But I doubt many share that.
Regardless, I am happy we have left it. I do not expect much positive as a consequence – beyond a reduction in official hypocracy regarding Iran.
I ultimately think that Iran will be nudged out of the role of beligerant.
But we have been working at that for a long time with small success.
I do not think that Trump knows what he is doing. But I also think that those bitching about what he is doing know even less.
The actual record of diplomats in solving these problems is horrible.
You do understand that the US sanctions reimposed by Trump in effect sanction those nations like France from doing business with Iran. Those nations invested time and money setting those investments in place. It’s also going to cost US corporations billions in lost business (Boeing, etc).
Name the benefits to the US for Trump’s action.
Economic benefits?
Security benefits?
I agree it wasn’t a good deal going in but pulling out now is a worse deal.
So your argument is some twist on “the end justifies the means” ?
Even that does nto work.
So lets start at the top:
The US can not compel France or any other country to sanction Iran or to back away from doing business with them.
The relations of nations with each other is a real world example of working anarcho capitalism.
I really do not care about sanctions. I do not think it is the business of government to interfere with peoples choices where no actual force is involved.
But I do think remaining in a deal that everyone knows is a farce is damaging and stupid.
The benefit to the US of with drawing from this deal ?
Not lying to ourselves and others – that is pretty much at the top of the list.
Is that unimportant to you ?
Ron noted Merkel saying that Europe might have to address their own security needs, and quit free riding off the US – I think that is a big positive.
I would further note that while I do not beleive that the US government should interfere in free exchange – including with Iran, these business you claim are losing money – are they ?
How do you lose something that never was yours in the first place ?
You do not have a right to sell something to Iran.
At most you have the right to try. That is the only thing that Trump is interfering with.
No. Pulling out is not “worse”.
Pulling out is honest.
Further your claim is ludicrous – if the deal was a bad deal – then not doing it was better,
Then withdrawing is better.
The deal does not (and can not come with penalty clauses)
What we actually have is Obama sending planeloads of money to Iran for nothing.
The plan, the plan, where’s the plan. Good or bad, when you take an action, it is smart to at least think what comes next. Trump never does that. People like that get lucky or weasel their way to a good conclusion sometimes, I prefer a more thought out process.
Even if he pulls a rabbit out of his hat sometimes, it may have s—- in the hat.
“The plan, the plan, where’s the plan. Good or bad, when you take an action, it is smart to at least think what comes next. Trump never does that. People like that get lucky or weasel their way to a good conclusion sometimes, I prefer a more thought out process.
Even if he pulls a rabbit out of his hat sometimes, it may have s—- in the hat.”
Planning is highly overrated.
This is AGAIN why government should not do what can be done outside of government.
No one is capable of accurately knowing what “comes next” even at the most superficial level we are usually wrong.
If good government planning were possible we would live in utopia.
To be clear – we should as much as reasonable plan before acting – particularly government – again why government should do less.
But we should also accept that things are NOT going to go according to plan.
Individuals and free actors can dynamically adapt to unforseen changes.
Government responses often take decades.
As to comparisons between Trump and Obama – did Obama “plan” for Iran to redouble their efforts at destabalizing the rest of the mideast ? did Obama “plan” for the Iranians to pretty much ignore the parts of the agreement regarding WMD’s ?
There are good arguments for the status quo. When in doubt, do not harm.
That is what you are arguing – and it is a valid argument.
But tanking the Iran deal is returning to the pre-deal status quo.
I would further suggest that the less well thought out process that you attribute to Trump, actually and historicially works better.
That is not to say that one should not plan. But planning should focus on two things:
Specifically how to accomidate the reasonably foreseable – and that is not very much.
Assuring sufficient future flexibility to accomidate the large unknowns that we can be near certain will occur, even if we can not know what they will be.
We are dealing with yin and yang, chaos and order.
We need both. When either dominates we fail.
You seek too much order and do not understand that chaos is not merely inevitable, it is desirable.
Order and chaos – in balance.
As I told Jay, I think you also have raised a question separate from the comment I made. I was relating this decision to Merkel saying the EU has to plan on themselves and not so much on America in the future.
Now for your comment about a plan. When your sitting in the hat with the rabbit that s-&7 in the hat, there is no good outcome. Either you put up with the s-+& or you get out and hope you can clean up the mess that was made.
The Iran deal was the rabbit that Kerry and Obama had to put in the hat. And in my mind, that rabbit had the poops. Trump is just trying to clean up the mess.
Why else would Obama not get congressional approval before playing “little dictator” and involving us in that crappy mess?
I did not read your link, but I absolutely agree with your premise.
One of the areas I DISAGREE with Trump, is that even Trump is too interested in the role as policeman of the world.
That said of the major poliitcal candidates in 2016, he was among the least interventionist.
As President he is more interventionist than I would prefer, but less interventionist that any president since Reagan.
I have no problem with the other nations of the world not believing the US AUTOMATICALLY has their back.
There are and will be times when we should support other nations in the world.
There is no nation that should have our unconditional support.
Further there is no nation that should abdicate its own responsibility to protect itself to the US or any other nation.
So those amongst us that are the Trump haters and Mueller supporters, is coordinating FBI director testimony with Mueller that takes place in the senate kosher. Isnt Mueller suppose to be independent of a position until all the facts are in?
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-emails-show-fbi-advised-comey-consult-muellers-office-prior-june-2017-testimony/
This may be nothing, but right now it just supports my view Mueller is playing a political game to take down the GOP as well as Trump
Why would Mueller, a life long Republican (with donations to the Republican Party last election cycle) want to bring down the Republican Party?
Do you understand how nutty that is?
Jay, why would Mueller coordinate Comeys testimony before the senate committee if he did not want Comey saying something that would negatively impact his investigation. Isnt he suppose to be “independent”?
What does ‘coordinate’ mean?
“What does ‘coordinate’ mean?”
Good question. What conversations between Mueller and Comey would be appropriate and what would be “obstruction of justice” ?
As I understand it, this “coordination” occured after Comey was anounced as a witness, and are with respect to his testimony.
I would note that thought there are several “obstruction” statutues, the most traditional, is trying to shape the under oath testimony of a witness in a proceeding.
All the critical elements are present – there was a hearing, Comey was scheduled to testify at it.
If Mueller and Comey had any discussions about what NOT to tell congress – that would be ACTUAL obstruction.
If Mueller and Comey had any discussions about emphasizing specific things or avoiding others – that would probably be obstruction.
This is complex – because Comey is clearly a witness and should be a subject, possibly a target in Mueller’s investigation. It is certain they are going to talk.
But they pretty much should NOT talk about Congressional investigations.
I would emphasize this FURTHER as Comey and Mueller are purportedly men of extremely high ethical and moral standards. The title of Comey’s book essentialy claims that he is more ethical and moral by far than Trump.
When you step onto the moral bully pulpit, you should expect to be judged by a far higher standard than others.
The man who investigates leakers – should not leak.
The mean would makes broad claims about obstruction of justice – should not obstruct justice.
What’s far more likely to explain ‘coordination’ in this instance is that ‘witness’ Comey (who was also in charge of the evidence as head of the FBI) was given guidance for any information that was still classified or had been classified since his departure.
And if Comey and Mueller need to be held to a higher standard because they have shown overall higher standards throughout their careers, are you saying we have to hold Trump to a lower standard because he’s proved himself to be a lying dishonest creepy-crawly human for most of his adult life?
“What’s far more likely to explain ‘coordination’ in this instance is that ‘witness’ Comey (who was also in charge of the evidence as head of the FBI) was given guidance for any information that was still classified or had been classified since his departure.”
Bzzt, wrong.
1). Comey knew and was required to know what was and was not classified when he was director.
2). While the FBI director is a originator of classification – Mueller is NOT.
The bar on disclosure with respect to a criminal investigation is NOT classification, it is the rights of criminal defendants. We get confused about this because so often prosecutors hide things from the defense, but the confidentiality of criminal investigations is not a government privilege, it is to protect the rights of all the people who are targets, subjects and witnesses.
3). with respect to testifying about classified matters – the rule is, when in doubt, request a private session. Congress is perfectly capable of taking classified testimony away from the public.
One of the big fights with Rosenstein at the moment it not just about getting to see classified documents, but getting to release testimony that the FBI/DOJ has marked as classifed, but has zero basis for being classified. The war against Rosenstein is that he has been slow walking and stalling – not over information that is truly classified, but over information that is merely embarrassing to the FBI/DOJ. So much so that he is classifying testimony to congress to prevent embarrassing information from getting out.
Regardless, there is very little basis for coordination between Comey and Mueller.
Except when he is testifying, there is no reason he should be talking to Mueller.
All that should be taking place through lawyers – explictly to protect both Comey and Mueller from claims of obstruction.
Regardless, the point I am making is still valid – Congress can not in excercising its constitutional powers obstruct Justice – just as the president can not.
But Mueller can obstruct justice if he interferes with a congressional investigation.
“And if Comey and Mueller need to be held to a higher standard because they have shown overall higher standards throughout their careers, are you saying we have to hold Trump to a lower standard because he’s proved himself to be a lying dishonest creepy-crawly human for most of his adult life?”
Multiple issues:
First addressing your actual argument but stripping away the adjectives – yes, it is correct. If you step up onto the moral and ethical soap box, you are and should be held to a higher standard.
Yes, Mueller and Comey have done so,
Yes, Trump has not.
Trump is no different today that he was as a candidate. We knew what we were getting when we voted for him – or did not. If you did not vote for him – you MIGHT get to say “I told you so” but that is pretty much the limit of your ability to hold Trump to higher moral and ethical standards.
Comey and Mueller have sold themselves as Moral and ethical giants.
Comey in particular has proven himself to be MORE morally bankrupt than Trump.
While he is a fairly sophisticated blackmailer, it is pretty clear that is what he is, and Trump called him on it. Bush and Lynch should have done the same.
What is it that Comey’s higher loyalty is too ? The law ? The man tasked with prosecuting leaks – immediately leaked after being fired. The man who called Clinton’s handling of classified documents reckless, willfully leaked documents he knew were classified.
It appears that he has also lied under oath about that – as well as several other things.
He is also saying publicly to sell his book things that are completely at odds with his testimony.
This is your idea of integrity ?
But back to your premise – there is one part of your claim that is false.
Comey and Mueller have wrapped themselves in the mantle of integrity.
But the evidence is that they have NEVER actually behaved with integrity, and that long predates the Trump investigation. Comey’s own testimony on the Clinton case makes it clear that he is clueless as to what integrity is.
Comey openly fretts constantly about whether his actions as FBI director will effect the election, and makes choices based on his analysis that they will not.
That is not ethics, that is exactly the opposite of ethics.
Ethics REQUIRES doing what is right, ESPECIALY when the results are going to be bad.
It means following principles and the law, regardless of the consequences.
Comey does not even pretend to have done that. He openly admits to making decisions in a highly unethical basis. He is so morally bankrupt he does not even grasp that he is litterally admitting to making choices for highly unethical reasons.
“What does coordinate mean? ”
I will use JW comments.
“Judicial Watch today released new emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by FBI officials in May 2017 to consult with Special Counsel Robert Mueller prior to testifying before any congressional committees regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his firing as FBI director.”
So what this tells me is Mueller is not conducting an independent investigation, that he does not want anyone saying anything that can contradict what he is creating and he told Comey what he could and could not say to the senate committee.
Not sue if that is coordinating, collaborating or just plan fabricating a story.
This is from a FOIA request of DOJ/FBI.
In other words it is about more than coordination between Comey and Mueller,
It is about coordination between Comey/DOJ/FBI and Mueller.
It is not his “independence’ that is the issue.
What matters is that he may not advise Comey to act in a way that will “obstruct” the congressional investigations.
Well WTF. I thought independent council meant they were charged with finding the truth.
The more I read and hear about this investigation, independent is far from the investigation. If a senator asked a question, I expect Comey to answer the question to the best of his knowledge. I would not expect him to be prepped, collaborating with or coordinating his testimony to fit Muellers investigation.
I still have lots to learn about corrupt government and I thought I already had bad views of government.
First he is a Special Counsel, not an independent council.
The IC act was allowed to expire.
The IC act gave the IC more power, but he was answerable to congress.
That is appropriate for investigations that have something to do with impeachment.
Though there are always complexities – much of what Starr dug into made more sense as a DOJ investigation.
What we really need is an IC that is essentially a 4th branch of government – but totally completely dedicated to rooting out government corruption.
That would require a constitutional amendment.
And that would make it impossible.
Further even that can be abused, and I would not know how to begin to properly setup an “independent counsel” of that type.
But everything else runs afoul of either the constitutions structure of the executive or of the congress.
Investigating the president really and truly must constitutionally be done by congress.
An SC can investigate much of the rest of the executive.
Though even their an SC should NOT be appointed where there is no conflict.
Next an SC is required to investigate a crime – that is the text of the law.
The Mueller investigation is a Counter Intelligence investigation primarily.
It is also an investigation of the Trump campaign – which as a general investigation is illegal and unconstitutional, And it MIGHT be an investigation of some crimes that have yet to be alleged.
Part of why Nunes is after the Rosenstein memo.
It is normal and acceptable for an SC to investigate crimes that are uncovered as part of their base investigation.
But the more tangential those become the more those should be passed off to others.
It is really strongly the case that Manafort should be pushed to the US ADA.
There is no link in the indictment between Manafort and Russia and the election.
The remarks of the judge with respect to getting Manafort to sing are related to that.
It is legitimate to “pressure” a target to roll on others.
But there are serious ethical and legal issues.
It is actually a crime – extortion, to threaten another with prosecution in order to get something you want from them.
The difference between criminal extortion and legitimate pressure is based on how close the crime is to what you want. BTW this is both public and private.
If I say – sell me your house cheap or I will expose that you stole money from your grandmother – that is a crime – extortion.
If I say pay me what you owe me or I will charge you with stealing it, that is not criminal extortion.
The further Mueller gets from his manadate with Manafort, the more ethical problems he has.
And that is what judge Ellis is pointing out
You keep trying to see everything through a partisan lense.
Everything is not partisan.
What was evident to some of us, and is increasingly evident with time, is that Mueller/Rosenstein/Comey/McCabe/Brennan/Clapper/….
Are not about the Red vs. blue teams. They are about “their” team vs all others.
Mueller and his people are interested in themselves.
I would note that there are alot of #nevertrump republicans and I would guess than Mueller is one.
But I do not think that Politics fits into this is the red/blue way.
Mueller has a long history of botched investigations. That should be indisputable at this time.
It is strongly arguable that he is not politically biased.
It is not arguable that he is competent.
He has a history of practically willful blindness, agression, and making serious mistakes.
He is a perfect demonstration of the fact that government promotes failure.
Regardless the argument is easiest to make with Comey.
Comey is much more clearly a manipulator – it is increasingly evident that he blackmailed Bush.
It is evident that he was essentially blackmailing AG Lynch, and that he tried to blackmail Trump.
Further in much of this Comey was not alone.
The same cabal keeps coming up over and over,
Rosenstein Fitzgerald, Comey, Mueller, McCabe appear in combinations in much misconduct going back decades.
They are in this for themselves.
There are two aspects of this – what are the facts and the actual ethics,
and what is the perception.
It is actually appropriate for Comey – both a witness and possible subject and target of the Mueller probe to consult with Mueller before testifying or speaking – though that communication should be through lawyers.
Further, the scope of such communication must be extremely limited.
The term – “obstruction of justice” gets bandied all over – far outside of its meaning.
If Mueller atttempted to disuade Comey from providing information to congress that is within congresses perview – and most anything is in congresses perview.
That would meet ever element of one of the obstruction laws construed narrowly.
This also relates to another story that has leaked but is thus far not getting much attention, and that is a rumor that Mueller is considering Rep. Nunes as a target for an obstruction of justice claim.
I would hope Mueller would be wise enough to not do something so stupid, and that this is just some stupidly planted story from some idiot who is ignorant of the law.
Nunes has constitutional immunity.
But even more important the investigations of congress are SUPERIOR to those of Mueller.
This is actually established law. Nones and the HPSCI can investigate as they please – stomping all over the Mueller investigation if they chose, They can accidentally or deliberately interfere.
The consequences of that interferance get judged by voters – in electing the next congress.
But conversely Mueller (nor the rest of DOJ/FBI) MAY NOT interfere with a congressional investigation.
Congress can legitimately act in ways that would be “obstruction of justice” with respect to DOJ/FBI/SC but the reverse is not true.
I doubt that Rosenstien, and Mueller are thinking about this, but hiding from congress what it wishes to know, is obstruction of justice.
There are a variety of priviledges that can be asserted regarding congressional inquiries.
Those of government are WEAK – and most do not apply to congress, or at most require some accomadation.
There is no absolute national security priviledge with respect to congress. There is no “methods and sources” priviledge. These are conventions, not absolute priviledges.
Congress is not just an inquiring private citizen. They have a nearly unreviewable “need to know”, and they have their own independent power to declassify documents and information.
To be clear that power is constrained – it belongs to congress as a whole – not individual congressmen – It is individual only with respect to the immunity afforded to congressmen speaking before congress.
My point is that Mueller/DOJ/FBI do not actually get to decide what Congress can have.
They can make it difficult for congress to make public what they find.
It is also in everyone – including congresses interests not to compromise national security or to go on which hunts. Typically congress does not devle into those areas that are often CALLED priviledged. What a congressmen or their staff never received they can not be prosecuted for leaking.
But control rests with congress.
Seems like reporters are only interested in ruining lives and not interested in the aftermath of their stories. As with many issues today, the metoo movement has created an atmosphere where one is guilty now and always unless found not guilty in a court of law. Accused 26 years ago, dismissed and still guilty in the mind of many
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/columnists/bob-wojnowski/2018/05/10/wojo-detroit-lions-matt-patricia/34780703/
People lie. They lie about abusing others. they lie about being abused.
The truth is hard to find.
With respect to this issue it is generally wise to beleive allegations within the context of your personal life, and to be skeptical with respect to criminal sanctions.
Generally good advice for anything.
The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is and should be high.
The standard for firing someone or refusing to associate with someone is and should be low.
“The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is and should be high.
The standard for firing someone or refusing to associate with someone is and should be low.”
Ah, but in todays social network environment, the standard for one being guilty is low while associating with one is high.
If this is the standard this generation is going to live in then years from now individuals are going to be in dark places. Piss someone off, they simply accuse them of something, refuse to testify and be on their way, knowing you will find future employeement difficult.
Should I rename Alexa to Frankenstein?
Not surprised. I have friends with one of these devices that said a couple months after installing the began getting more advertisements from Amazon. Could not figure out why because they had not searched for those type of items. Someone joked that their home was bugged since they had discussed one of the items at dinner one night. Thats when they tested. They started talking about one thing they had no interest in buying and a few days later up comes the Amazon ads. Of course Amazon denied having anything to do with that, but Alixa was listening. Does anyone really think Alixa is off until it hears the word. Yeah right!
I’m going to try that: I’ll start talking about something improbable and see if I get ads for it on Amazon.
But the Alexa device is worth playing around with.
We have two, one upstairs, one down. You can use them as intercoms. And for timers or alarms or reminders. I use the downstairs one for multiple cooking timers on complicated recipes. And for specific weather reports in my neighborhood. And to listen to music – you can ask for special artists or kinds of music, and raise or Lower the volume with voice command. Or ask for correct spelling of words. It’s an exploding AI Technology that will permantly change the way we interact with our environment- like phones did in the Early 1900s. And not an expensive investment for keeping in step with the future..
Alexa and Siri are pretty far down in terms of AI capabilities.
The critical ability is voice recognition – that has been arround since the 80’s.
I worked with voice controlled homes for the handicapped.
The critical issue then as now was training. Then you had to manually train these devices to your voice. Today they come pretrained – modern voice recognitions systems use neural networks that have been pre trained with thousands of words spoken by thousands of people.
If you actually care about how this works (and why once in a while you get bizzare results” try watching 3blue1brown’s youtube video on neural networks.
Understanding what is occurring is useful, if you think of this as magic or intelligence, you will have little idea what the future will bring. If you understand how all this works, you will better understand what the future will bring – what jobs are threatened and which are not.
The training of a neural net – such as for voice recognition is a massive and mathematically complex process. But once trained the actual neural networks are pretty simple.
Further if Amazon or Apple finds a problem they can correct the training, and update the neural network and the problem goes away.
aside from the voice recognition, most of the rest of what is occuring is really just a simplified voice driven search engine,
See, Dave – this is why you’re an annoying Putz. You can’t help but pontificate in know it all fashion, no matter what’s said.
You don’t get it, do you?
I feel sorry for you in a way – you have a personality disorder of some kind.
I’d tell you to get professional help, but I have too much sympathy for those who would have to deal with you.
Failing to see the obvious is likely annoying and is your problem.
We are not debating difficult questions of philosophy.
Being right about the obvious is not pontificating.
No I do not get that you are unable to manage to get relatively simple questions right.
I deal with far more complex issues of logic all the time.
I do not need nor want your pity. I am happy – why would I seek “help” to be less happy ?
Deal with your own problems, stop projecting.
You constantly want to play this stupid game of pretending that you are omniscient.
Given that you can not manage relatively simple issues without getting distracted from facts and logic, and tied up in emotional garbage, why would I presume that you have the slightest clue about anything regarding me ?
You pretend that I am making pronouncements from on high – when all I am doing is stating what is obvious, yet you are completely un self aware of the fact that you are presuming to sit in judgment of the emotional and mental health of someone whose emotional and mental health you have no knowledge of.
Dealing with me is pretty easy – don’t make simple mistakes.
In a more recent WSJ article Strassel is now claiming that sources within the DOJ/FBI/CIA
have leaked – to WSJ and other media enough information regarding what is being hidden to peice together what DOJ/FBI is hiding.
You will have to decide for yourself how credible you consider purported DOJ/FBI/CIA leask to the media.
But if you beleive them:
The Trump campaign was being “spied on” – not investigated starting in early 2016.
This was initially reported as a mole inside the campaign.
That appears to be an overstatement.
The “spy” appears to be an outsider, who has worked for both the CIA and MI-6 and been paid a substantial amount by them.
Has ties to both Brennan and Dearlove – the former head of MI-6,
Is a US/UK dual citizen,
Is a professor in England.
Is associated with Misfud – the professor who is Papadoulis’s purported tie to Russia
It is increasingly likely that Misfud is another CIA/MI-6 “consultant” aka “spy”.
Is associated with Andrew Downer
Is associated with Christopher Steele.
Has engaged in political espionage before.
Met with Papadoulis, Page and another unnamed member of the Trump Campaign – probably Gates.
I might be missing a few of the “known” facts.
I beleive Strassel indicated in her column that she was pretty sure who this is – is there is only one person that fits all the known facts, but that she was not releasing her educated guess.
But the name has been outed by others – as Strassel noted, given the facts, it is not hard to find the person who fits them.
Now if you have a person being paid by CIA/MI-6 who initiates contact with Papadoulis shortly after he joins the Trump campaign early in 2016, who is responsible for connecting Papadoulis to all the other people he is purportedly in trouble for contacting – atleast one of which is likely another MI-6 operative.
If that same person also later initiates a meeting with Carter Page – and shortly after that the FISA warrant is issued.
That same person also initiates a meeting with another Trump Campaign member.
If in each of these instances the “target” was induced – with payment for reports, or paid attendance at conferences with highly placed people.
I would hope that even Jay would grasp that CIA paying a spy to spy on a US political campaign would be a very very serious problem.
Again nearly all of this occurred BEFORE there was any warrant.
Nearly all of this occured BEFORE there was any allegation of a crime.
Nearly all of this occured BEFORE there was any actual FBI investigation.
I would further note that NONE of this occured through normal channels.
It has already been made publice that FVEY’s did not conduct any surveilance of the Trump campaign. That means that AU, CA, NZ, UK, and US intelligence agencies ran no “on the book” operations against Trump, and that no information regarding Trump/Russia EVER came from actual admitted IC sources.
This is begining to look alot like Nixon and the plumbers – only worse. Brennan and the CIA are tied to this.
Prior to Strassels stories I had heard some muttings of something like this from sources similiar to Louis Mensch and dismissed it.
But many of the “facts” above have been reported in bits and peices in the MSM over the past year.
There have been vague stories that Trump/Russia collusion claims reached the US IC from foreign intelligence sources.
There have been hints that Misfud was a fake Russian connection and that Papadoulis had been duped by him, and that he might be a western intelligence operative.
We now know about the Downer connection – and his connections to the Clinton’s
I would re-iterate that much of this sounds too much like some right wing version of some Louis Mensch conspiracy.
I expect that as this moves from and array of leaks to the press most of which conform to prior reports over the past 2 years, that some of the details will prove wrong and other details will be added.
Regardless, except that it is hard to beleive that US and british intelligence agencies – or possibly just their heads, engaged in spying on US citizens and a US political campaign, and worse still actually created the Russia/Trump collusion story from whole cloth, increasingly this is moving from fantasy to fact.
The contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians – real of fake, were not initated by the Trump campaign, or Papadoulis, or Carter Page or apparently Gates, they were put in place by off the books spies and pushed to the Trump Campaign.
The Natalia/Trump Jr./Fusion GPS connection has always looked like a setup, the Papadoulis activities has always looked stupid, there has never been evidence that Prof. Misfud had any real connections to Russians. Now it appears likely this all was a setup, and that the setup was orchestrated by the DCI and his counterpart in MI-6.
I read some of your comment to determine the subject. As with everything anti-Trump that Jay posts, this also gets my wait and see grade. I dont believe anything anyone writes now until proof is avaliable, that is communicated, AND, most importantly, the opposition press shuts up because it has been proven that what they say is fantasy news.
I guess I need to change my screen name to Debby Downer since I am negative on all press.
Ron;
I absolutely agree. But for the fact that Strassel and now McCarthy has taken this up, and the fact that rumours have been floating for over a year of a mole in the Trump campaign.
I would have filed all this under lunatic conspiracy theory. The rights version of Louis Mensch, something I would expect on Maddow, or Infowars.
Further the relationship of media stories and leaks to what is subsequently found to be facts has proven interesting.
Virtually every single anti-trump story, or Mueller is about to story, has ultimately proven to have some basis in fact. But nearly always the real story has substantially different meaning than what was initially reported.
At this time I have little doubt that this story is coming to the fore.
What I question is how accurate the facts currently being alleged are.
Regardless, it appears fairly solid that the CIA (or atleast Brennan) and MI-6 (or atleast Dearlove) were running an operation against the Trump campaign in the UK that started very early in 2016, and that this was an “off the books” operation – that it was conducted outside of the normal intelligence community.
That is a very big deal. It makes it nearly indistinguishable from Nixon and the Plumbers.
Need I remind you that the watergate burglars were all off the books CIA operatives ?
I would further note that the alleged purpose of the watergate burglary was to uncover criminal activity within the DNC.
A purportedly good purpose – does not justify criminal acts by government.
Though this remains WORSE than watergate.
It is increasingly looking like Papadoulis, Page, and Gates atleast were being duped, that they were being setup, chasing bait being laid out for them. That the only “Trump/Russia Collusion” was that orchestrated by their “handlers” in the clandestine services.
“Need I remind you that the watergate burglars were all off the books CIA operatives ?”
If you told me that the CIA had some off the books operation on any/all elections in America, it would not even make me blink. Now if you told me there were no off the books ops by agencies, that would make me say BS. I cant prove it, but who could one way or the other.
Again I agree.
But on off book operation targeting a political campaign that has little of no involvement of any US government agencies – except for a few people at the top of those agencies is :worse than watergate”.
We are learning alot about “terminalogy” and process.
One of the Issues been exlored now is the EC that started this.
EC stands for Electronic Communications. but aparently that label is misleading.
What it apraently is, is the formal “finding” that was necescary to open an intelligence operations.
To wiretap a US person – the DOJ/FBI must get a FISA warrant.
To open an investigation of a US Person there apparently must be an EC
A large part of this is not precisely what is in the EC, or the FISA warrant, but the lying and disembling that has occurred in testimony to congress that is contradicted by the Warrant applications and EC.
BTW McCabe testified that the FBI went to a great deal of effort to verify (and failed) the Steele Dossier – including sending an agent to london.
There is an implication in McCabes testimony that the FBI had a “source” in London.
Glenn Simposon’s testimoney has Steele meeting an FBI agent in Rome who indicated to Steele that the FBI had a source in the Trump Campaign.
Both Steele and Simpson refer to this because they beleive it corroborated the Steele Dossier – atleast in general terms. i.e. if the FBI was investigating the same things that Steele was that increased the possibility it was true.
What is slowly becoming apparent is that all of these multiple different “sources” originate with the DNC and HFA.
In the catagory of more broadly speculative,
Papadoulis is on the record as having chased after Clinton emails PRIOR to wikileaks releasing the DNC emails.
I have thought it has ALWAYS been apparent that Papadoulis and the Trump campaign OPENLY sought evidence the Russians had the Clinton State Department Emails from her private email server.
I think that it is pretty clear that is what Papadoulis was looking for.
However Papadoulis has testified that he was approached by someone who claimed that the russians had Thousands of Clinton emails BEFORE the wikileaks release.
We now know that the DNC was aware that they were compromised several months before the emails came out. It is entirely possible that the party who approached Papadoulis was already aware that the DNC emails had escaped and was doing damage control trying to frame the Trujmp campaign by creating foreknowledge.
It also increase the odds that Seth Richards or the Pakistani IT guys are the source, not Gucifier2.0
Here is McCarthy addressing the same issue.
McCarthy has approached this from a different perspective – presuming that Glenn Simpson’s original under oath testimony was truthful and accurate, and that the subsequent spin to de-emphasize aspects of it was damage control.
McCarthy properly makes a very big deal fo timelines.
What was actually known at what times, rather than extrapolating from media leaks.
McCarthy and Strassel both make another huge point.
From start to finish the FBI/DOJ have been evasive, and their stories have changed repeatedly. and inconsistently.
Through to the moment the various claims being made by FBI/DOJ do not pass the laugh test.
I keep harping that a FISA warrant based on the information we are told was provided to the FISA court is itself a crime. That you can not present unverified OPO research to the courts for the purpose of getting a warrant.
That doing so is itself a crime.
McCarthy is saying the same thing – only differently. He is now not saying the DOJ/FBI did not file a warrant request based on information they knew was garbage.
McCarthy is saying, that the hemming and hawing of DOJ/FBI is because they are hiding something.
When it was originally suggested that the FBI had an inside source in the Trump Campaign – the left was ecstatic. If some member of the Trump campaign was feeding the FBI intelligence, then the FBI had a legitimate basis for its investigations. The left assumed that an insider meant their was much more dirt to come, but even the most conservative view of an insider source, means the FBI had a credible basis to trust that information – even if it never lead anywhere useful.
But what appears to be coming out is not “an insider” in the Trump campaign,
But that someone was running an intelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
Mccarthy is still focussed on the FBI. I think Strassel more strongly suggests this was Brennan and CIA.
Everyone agrees that British intelligence was involved though it appears that this is FORMER british intelligence.
Though there is plenty of room for ambiguity. Steele is a former MI-6 operative, and has ties to both the CIA and FBI. The lead candidate for this is a political operative who has worked in intelligence and consulted for CIA and MI-6.
Past connections to CIA do not inherently mean the CIA rather than the FBI were running this operation.
There is also purportedly a money trail involved though at the moment there are conflicting stories, there is atleast one claim of a specific amount paid to the operative purportedly by the CIA.
Again we will have to see what pans out.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/did-fbi-have-spy-in-trump-presidential-campaign/
I would note from other stories that there are other common threads to all of this.
At every stage of this, the operations against the Trump campaign were NOT conducted through normal channels or processes.
Five Eyes was not involved. Information did not come into CIA, State, DOJ, FBI from traditional investigative sources flowing up to the top.
Everything came from non-traditional sources and entered at the TOP levels of the organization.
The supposed IC report on Russian interferance was not produced by the normal process using the normal committee, but was a special report concosted by a few hand picked people who did not normally do this.
The vigorous efforts of DOJ/FBI to obstruct the HPSCI investigation are themselves evidence that not only was something highly unusual and improper going on, but that those involved KNEW that.
While full of spin and bending over backwards to make the misconduct of the FBI seem paletable, as well as rife with errors of fact that are pretty trivially provable, NYT has neverthless confirmed pretty much all of the WSJ story.
BEFORE the FISA Warrants, the CIA/FBI started an off books intelligence operation targetting 4 people in the Trump Campaign.
That is BEFORE any allegations of collusion were made.
“In Trump world the tone is set from the top.”
https://www.weeklystandard.com/charles-j-sykes/john-mccains-integrity-exposes-donald-trumps-true-character
@Jay. Monkey see monkey do.
-Israel couldn’t figure out a better way to deter Palestinians from touching their beautiful fence. Over fifty killed hundreds wounded. Hamas did it, Hamas did it.
-Two evangelicals dedicating the new Embassy in Jerusalem. Great secular choices by Trump. Bibi laps it up, even if some Israelis found an insult in one of the Evans remarks.
– Investigators of private colleges’s abuses are shrunk to four and are former private college employees. They mainly look at the student loans, no time to go after promises of employment help for graduates.
– ZTE, too big to fail. “Let’s work a deal”.
If a college has made a promise to you that it has failed to keep – that is a breach of contract, it is not a crime. It needs no “investigation”.
Nor is it a “federal government” matter. You would sue the college in local court. Just as you would if your landlord failed to follow the lease or if your employer did not abide by an employment contract.
We do not need infinite means of redress for every possible wrong.
If you think the promises that colleges or others make and fail to keep are a huge problem – form a private organization to assist students in going after their colleges.
Or get a lawyer to start a class action.
I have almost no sympathy for the palestinians and not much more for the Israeli’s.
I think that Israel should have acted unilaterally after Arafat refused to even make a counter proposal when Clinton brought both sides together in the hope of a crowning acheivement for his presidency. All the elements were in place – Israel was prepared to give the Palestinians almost everything they purportedly wanted. Arrafat said no and refused to say what he did want.
Israel should have left, and unilaterally declared the borders of the state of Israel excluding the West Bank and Gaza on lines of their choosing and abdicated all claims and responsibility for the west bank and gaza and sealed the boarders if necescary.
Frankly they should do so today.
What occured yesterday was tragic. Unfortunately it was also predictable.
You wish to blame Israel.
You seem to misunbderstand what a government is.
Lete me repeat AGAIN,
“Government Is Not Reason, It Is Not Eloquence — It Is Force”
When a problem can be solved without force or the threat of force – it is NOT a problem that involves government.
Further you can not threaten force unless you are prepared to use it.
I keep trying to get that through to you all. But no one seems to grasp it.
While most of us obey the law because the law reflects our own principles morals and values and we would behave the same way whether the law existed or not, for those few whose behavior is ONLY constrained by force, the threat of force is NOT sufficient if their is no beleif that threat will be enforced.
When government says “you can not park there” – that is meaningless, unless when you do they fine you or take your car. And if they fine you – that threat is meaningless – unless they will jail you if you do not pay the fine, and the threat to jail you is meaningless, unless government sends armed men to come and get you who are willing to KILL you if you do not obey them.
Ultimately EVERY SINGLE LAW is enforced ONLY by the willingness of a government to KILL to enforce it.
Do not pass a ANY law unless you are prepared to KILL to enforce it.
What you saw yesterday was merely the fact that ultimately government is force – the power to KILL people if necessary to protect the state and enforce the laws.
The Palestinians have repeatedly made it clear they are not going to adhere to the law in Israel, that they are prepared to kill themselves to get what they want, and to ignore the whatever laws the Israeli’s make – and challenge them even if that results in getting killed.
We are not dealing with Gandhi and the actual non-violent protests of an aggrieved people.
We are dealing with two groups that actually went to war over control of a tiny country in the mideast. One won against tremendous odds, and the other lost. All of that happened 75 years ago. The Palestinians have two choices. Sit down and negotiate the best deal they can get, and then actually abide by it, or go back to war. There is not a third way.
Sympathy has little place in this. There is no magic fairy dust that will make the belligerents get along. Israel is a nation and the duty of a country is to protect its people – USING FORCE.
You do not seem to grasp – I do not think there are many people (unfortunately there are a few) who think that John McCain is not a man of great character – though He too has made some serious mistakes.
I do not think there are many of us that think that Trump is an example of good character.
Unfortunately having character is not a qualification for being president (or any other public office) or we could have disposed of Both Trump and Clinton and myriads of other politicians.
Despite his character flaws – which were all known at the time of the election – Trump was elected.
You can bitch and moan about those flaws – and I may join you – while noting that those flaws are not especially different from other presidents and politicians back to Jefferson.
Trump’s sexual conduct is tame in comparison to JFK who is practically a national hero.
Despite actually sleeping with a german spy.
I do not want to get into a full throated defense of Trump – I do not really like his character.
But I am highly offended by this garbage that he is some existential threat to the country.
His character issues are not even close to the most egregious of past president.
Frankly than are not as bad as Bill Clinton.
It is not really your constant carping about Trump’s bad character that is so annoying.
If that is how you wish to waste your time, that is up to you.
It is the assertion that Trump is somehow the worst that ever was and that he must be removed – just because his character bothers you.
I just refilled my auto gas tank, WTF!
prices zooming up!
Thanks Trump for making Russia and Saudi Arabia richer.
Jay, if grass there is an in cattle farts polluting the air, you would blame Trump.
Give it up!
Gas is increasing because oil is increasing.
Opec cut production last year to reduce oil inventory. Increase price!
Summer blends,especially CA. Increase price!
Oil prices declined in 2017, fewer rigs drilling, production did not increase, inventories decreased, increase price!
Driving is increasing demand ,summer, increase price!
More cars on road, mostly SUV’s, lower mileage, more gas used, demand increase, increase price!
Economic world growth increases demand, increase price!
CA gas tax increase of 12 cents a gallon November, increase price!!!!!!!
The issue with Iran is minimal because the Saudi’s have already said they will make up what little may be lost if sanctions take place.
Get your stories right before automatically blaming Trump for everything.
Rising oil prices will expand the US Fracking industry – which has not fully recovered from the holy war the Saudi’s waged to try and destroy US Fracking.
Regardless, the prices are relatively self regulating – the higher they go the more impetus their is to get into Fracking and other oil drilling and therefore the lower the prices go.
Politics sometimes effects things temporarily.
But Jay wants to see everything as a Plot.
If Trump dropped the Iran deal to favor russia – then why has he approved various US pipelines – which clearly screw the Russians ?
One side never requires their arguments to make sense.
A story out now reveals that Mueller as FBI director was in bed with one of the very same Russian Oligarchs that Trump has sanctioned, and that Mueller is now investigating for ties to Trump.
More than a decade ago an FBI agent was abducted in Iran. Mueller, McCabe and a cast of other names that show up in most every major story about Trump/Russia and the FBI approached a Russian Oligarch for assistance in securing the release of the agent.
That Oligarch ultimately spent $52M of their own money trying to get the agent released, and aparently came very close to succeeding before Clinton and State failed to meet one of the condictions that they had previously agreed to and killed the deal. The agent is still missing.
I do not want to comment much on the effort itself. Like Iran Contra it was ABSOLUTELY illegal. It was clearly negotiating with terrorists. At the same time exactly like Iran Contra, it is very hard to fault Mueller for trying to get his man home safely.
But prior to Mueller’s “deal” with the oligarch, he was unable to travel to the US.
As he started providing assistance the oligarch found the skids were greased and he was able to come and go at will- eventually traveling for business on a diplomatic visa which is never done.
Now after spending 52M of his own money trying to do the FBI a favor, that got kiboshed by Clinton, the Oligarch is not only PNG again, but finds himself entangled on the wrong side of Mueller in the Trump investigation.
I guess you can beleive whatever you want. But pretending that Trump’s dealings with Russia were unique or even close to as illegal or corrupt as those of the very people persecuting him – such as The Obama Administration. Clinton and Mueller specifically, is ludicrous.
If you want to jail people for “colluding with Russia to violate US laws” you can start with Mueller.
Or maybe it is because Wall Street thinks Pruitt might be driven out at EPA.
Regardless, if you are going to blame politicians for prices – focus on the ones they ACTUALLY control – such as medical prices what are to a large extent government price controlled.
The effects of decisions like pulling out of Iran will be transitory, and I thouhg lefties actually favored high gas prices – or is that only when democrats are in control.
“focus on the ones they ACTUALLY control – such as medical prices what are to a large extent government price controlled.”
AMEN!!!Many of our managed care contracts paid 80%- 100+% of Medicare rates. Company never had to renegotiate since the government set the rates yearly. And it is much worse today.
Dingdong Donnie: More Shooting From The Lip:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/13/trump-zte-china-sanctions-korea-iran-584244
Marco is suspicious
Given that I do not beleive in sanctions in the first place, and I do not beleive in government trade restrictions either and that I have been consistent on that with both Obama and Trump – why should I care if Trump is backing away from something stupid.
My guess though is that this is typical Trump – the sanctions were targeted and he knew the effect would be devastating. He either has or will get something in return for lifting them.
I would note – that with few exceptions, Trump has very successfully moved the US from failed multilateral negotiations to a wide range of bilateral – or atleast less multilateral negotiatiosn that he is generally succeeding at.
Trump has been unbeleivably successful at playing China since taking office.
On the one hand he has given the the opportunity to publicly play a larger role in the region – but ONLY where it severs US interests.
Trump has been highly confrontational on Trade and the South China Sea, while at the same time getting massinve public held from China with North Korea.
Jay, this is the problem with our 24/7 news coverage, twitter and all the other communication. We had ships turned around taking agri. products to China. We have trade talks continuing with China. We have upcoming talks with the midget and China has interests to make sure a free country is not next door.
Stop jumping at the laser light like the cat being teased every time something or someone says something negative about Trump. Wait and see what the final outcome is. ZTE may be a pawn in a much larger agreement.Once the outcome is known, then go ballistic.
China also has an interest in not having a crazy man with nukes next door.
“Global oil supplies were already getting tight before Trump vowed on Tuesday to exit the Iran nuclear deal and impose “powerful” sanctions on the OPEC nation.
Energy industry insiders say Trump’s tough stance on Iran will probably keep oil and gasoline prices higher than they would otherwise be.
Iran ramped up its oil production by 1 million barrels per day after sanctions were lifted in early 2016. At least some of that oil will now be pulled from the market — at a time when oil prices are already rising because of production cuts by OPEC and Russia as well as instability in Venezuela.
Dan Eberhart, CEO of oilfield services company Canary LLC, drew a direct connection: “Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal will support higher oil prices.”
Trump telegraphed the move, and oil prices shot up in recent weeks as traders anticipated it. Crude topped $70 a barrel this week for the first time in nearly four years. Hours before Trump’s announcement, federal government forecasters raised their estimate for 2018 oil prices by 10.5% to an average of $65.58 a barrel.”
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/08/investing/oil-prices-trump-iran-sanctions/index.html
Jay, sorry I cant buy your Kool-Aid. Its all about who you listen too.
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/09/609524446/oil-prices-rise-after-trumps-iran-speech-but-supply-and-demand-also-fueling-incr
Yes, Iran had some impact, but most, according to one of the more progressive news networks was caused by things other than Iran.
By the way, move. You can come to NC, VA OR SC and save over $1.00 per gallon.
The economy is extremely complex and every single action provokes long complex chains of actions and reactions.
I have little doubt that in the short run dropping the Iran deal will drive up oil prices.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem probably does to. Anything that increases tensions in the mideast does so – atleast temporarily.
But any action that drives prices up also triggers actions that ultimately drive prices down.
The only way they stay up on a sustained basis is continuous government interferance.
The Saudi’s have just come off an oil war with US frackers – and they lost.
The production cuts are the consequence of losing. They tried to flood the market with cheap oil to put Frackers out of business – the Obama administration did most everything to aide them, and they succeeded in putting many Frackers out of business.
But they could not put them all out of business and the cutthroat competition not only benefited US consumers in the short run – but also the long run. Many US Frackers can thrive with Oil at $19/bbl. With every increase from that more will reenter the market. Further all Frackers have learned that oil can be produced at $19/bbl. If they do not know now how to, they will figure it out quickly, because should prices drop again they do not want to go out of business again.
Higher oil prices beneft US frackers MORE than Saudi’a or Russians.
You noted that Iran increased output. Do you think they are going to cut it again ?
They have a politically unstable country, the negative impact of reduced oil revenues – and that is what price increases and/or production cut backs will do, could result in regime change.
Regarldess of prices the LOSERS in this are Iran and Russia – as you said they are cutting production. That is BAD for both countries.
Aren’t China and Iran strategic partners?
Is sneaky Donald getting a kickback of some kind?
Like more loans from China to help his foreign businesses?
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road
BTW, Dave/John & Ron – the Steele Dossier referenced the Trump China business relationships
It also said that Trump was a very wealthy person.
One of the reasons that the Steele Dossier is labeled “unverified” is that the SPECIFIC claims it makes – such as the peeing incident or specific meetings with specific people at specific times and places have either been disproven or remain unproven.
Vague and ambigous claims that are in broad senses true do not “confirm” anything.
Trump has business relationships throughout the world. That was PUBLIC knowledge before the election. Information in the Steele Dossier that is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE does not confirm it or make it “verified”.
A source is reliable ONLY if it can tell you something you can verify that is NOT public knowledge.
The Steele Dossier has NEVER done that.
Mueller will be soon asking too
Why would Mueller be asking? What does this have to do with Russian collusion.
I have decided that Dave is right! We need a constitutional amendment to form a 4,th equal wing of government. Ethics or whatever you want to call it. I would recommend the nomination comes from SCOTUS for a 6 year term approved by 2/3rds of the senate.
Primary responsibility would be presidential investigation followed by investigation of cabinet members, then senators, then house. A report to the people would be required every 90 days regardless. Could be one sentence. “,Nothing found current period” Funding for department would come from federal fines achieved by other agencies. That way they do not yave slush funds, the treasury department operates on the approved budget and the ethics division is nit reliant on congressional budgeting.
What BTW is wrong with the Whitehouses answer ?
I know that Clinton had half her Clinton Foundation staff on the State Departments payroll, but Trump has pretty well divided responsibilities. Those family members handling the business are handling the business – not the politics, while those dealing with government are separated fromt the business.
Do we want the WH staff feilding questions on Trump’s businesses ?
Do we want the WH staff helping to manage Trump’s businesses ?
I do not expect and do not want the WH commenting on Trump’s businesses.
That WOULD be an ethical issue.
Just to be clear – which I think we need an independent body to investigate the ENTIRE govenrment, there is not a perfect solution, AND The Congress, Judiciary, and Executive, must have their own power to “check” that “branch”.
My proposal is not realistic – it is never going to happen. But that does not mean it is not a good idea.
There are several other important aspects to it – you would probably role, the various IG’s and auditor’s into this “branch”, next I think you can setup BY LAW parameters and rules of ethics.
You discussed reporting to congress.
There is a general rule – which Comey refered to when Trump directed him to tell the public he was not being investigated, that until people are prosecuted, investigators will not confirm much of anything regarding an investigation.
We need the means to confirm that such a branch of government ethics is actually doing its job, and that it is doing so in an apolitical way. that it is NOT ignoring the misconduct of political friends and not persecuting enemies. There is a great deal of power here and all power corrupts.
That is why we need laws and we need checks and balances.
I would further note that I do not beleive in non–partisan.
I think I share the view of the founders – you can not eliminate political biases.
But you can pit them against each other for the common good.
My suggestion would be to have the appointments to this 4th Branch be mad by the states – vaguely similar to the way we used to elect senators.
I would suggest that State AG’s submit names to their state legislators, and the state legislators confirm 50 members of the Public integrity branch of government.
That each member is equal, and that though less formal they operate much like congress – except more privately. That and of these officers can start an investigation – but without subpeona power or grand juries or anything that runs afoul of a very restrictive interpretation of the 4th amendment, that any of these appointees can submit the results of a preliminary investigation to the whole body seeking approval to develop a full investigation that involves subpeona power and grand juries, Maybe only a 1/3 vote is needed to proceed to a full investigation.
And the next step being an actual prosecution requires a majority of those appointed.
You are going to need a constitutional amendment to do this.
I think you provide them a fixed and indepent budget. One they do not control themselves, but is also difficult or impossible for the congress or president to control.
I actually immagine a LARGE budget, and LOTS of investigations,
But I would see these ar done QUIETLY until they bear fruit.
I do not want it to be publicly known what they are investigating, and I want them investigating ATLEAST the entire federal government.
There is another “benefit” to this – if congress (or the executive or the judiciary) makes a referal for prosecution of a government employee – it is NOT DOJ/FBI that does it – it is this branch which I would more strongly tie to the states.
Maybe the states provide the funding.
Regardless, my objective is to pit interest against interest.
It is also to make corrupt public action much more dangerous.
We do not want the policy and law making branches of govenrment investigating each other.
I would also note this ties in with the left’s rant about campaign finances and my position that government can not regulate what a private person does with their own money.
The left rightly grasp that politics is corrupt – money is a part of that, but the real problem is power.
I have said before – if you bribe a judge, or building inspector, or a congressmen – the REAL criminal is the public servant.
Nabisco buys shelf space in stores all the time. What we think of as bribery in a public context is not corrupt and just business in a private context.
It is the public servant that betrays a duty and oath.
Further if we prioritize prosecuting public servants we will much more strongly disincentivize corruption.
I want every congressmen to be worried that the person they recieve a political donation from could be testifying against them in some public integrity trial.
I would completely legalize bribing a public servant and heavily criminalize accepting a bribe as a public servant.
I want those private parties engaged in even the hint of public corruption to be able to rat out the politicians they are buying with little risk.
Mueller has a raft of new trouble of his own coming.
I noted to Ron, the Mueller connection to Russian Oligarchs that are also tied to Trump.
You can have sympathy for Mueller and his actions. And just like Iran Contra, no one is prosecuting Mueller for trying to use russian oligarches to free and FBI agent.
But it presents a huge conflict of interest problem for Mueller, and he already has far too many.
Many left constitutional scholars and talking heads have claimed that Judge Ellis is just blowing smoke, and trying to look fair and impartial.
Aside from the fact that Nunes and Grassley are zeroing in on the spy’s hired by the Obama’s to run an operation against Trump, and that is going to significantly farther damage the entire basis for the investigation.
You are not going to get anywhere when ALL the tenative connections between Trump and Russia were FED to Trump minions by spies working for CIA/FBI.
But there was a very interesting editorial in WSJ by a constitutional lawyer, who clerked for Scalia when he wrote his scathing disent regarding the Independent counsel.
That scholar notes that people are NOT reading and applying the law properly from the MAJORITY decision.
The Rhenquist court basically decided the case that was in front of them – which was not specifically about special Prosecutors, on the basis that the position in question was an INFERIOR appointment and not subject to the advise and consent clause of the constitution.
Essentially the MAJORITY position was that ANY government appointment that has independent powers – that is any “policy making position” – and that would include the power to indict and prosecute, must be made by the president and confirmed by congress.
Essentially that Rosenstein can not constitutionally appoint a Special Counsel – unless that SC does not have the power to indict or prosecute.
Put more simply SCOTUS decided that only presidentially appointed and senate confirmed positions have independent powers.
Judge Ellis could throw out all Mueller’s indictments on the basis of that SCOTUS decision, on the basis that Mueller was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Basically this is shaping up to be a very bad week for Mueller.
I would expect that Manafort’s lawyers are boning up on the Rehnquist decision right now.
“Aren’t China and Iran strategic partners?”
No!
Ron, I hope you were being sarcastic. More government in an Ethics wing. Are you Bernie in disguise as a Libertarian. 🙂
Less government, more honest politicians, ahem.
Finding ethical people would be like the Romans trying to find a Vestal virgin for their parade. It had to be cancelled.
dduck, if you note I said their primary concern would be the president. We already have that with Mueller investigating everything from Russia to the color of his crap. How could we spend any more money than we are now. But I know this would never happen as no one in government would ever go for it and I doubt SCOTUS could find an honest man/woman to head the department that would want it.
But what the hell, we are already 20T in debt, the deficit will be close to 100% of GDP in a few short years, so what a few billion more to create a “Mueller Department”
But Trump said the tax cuts would stimulate the economy and erase the deficit. Like he said Mexico would pay for the Wall.
And what’s cost taxpayers more – the Mueller investigation, or Secret Service costs ferrying Trump to his golf and hotel properties?
Jay, you know my thoughts on Trump. Trump did not write the tax law. Congress wrote the law. People need to wake up and understand What the president can and can not do. But you know I do not approve of much of what Trump does or has done. However, I approve less of what the Bitch has done or what she stands for.
You know what I think of Mueller. Minor crimes made public to get to Trump, no matter what it is just to get something is unacceptable to me. He is not the FBI, he is WTF whatever they call that investigator now and he is going ape shit on anything about Trump other than on his primary responsibility, Russia.
So you want to talk about lies. Here is something to chew on.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
Do we have a different measure for Trump lies than Obama lies?
My last comment on this subject until Mueller gets off the pot and flushes the crapper. As before, I suspect something around October so the press has about 30 days before the election to spread the negative GOP news.
I do not care about the “cost” of the Mueller investigation.
Though I have serious problems with the fact that it is outside of any control, otherwise I am perfectly fine with government getting tied up in knots investigating the crap out of itself.
Though I would prefer the anal probing to be much more bipartisan – meaning I wan ALL Anus’s deeply probed regardless of party.
Tax cuts are stimulative – there is plenty of data on that. The facts do not care whether you agree.
Though “stimulative” is not the sole measure of “beneficial”, nor does the fact that tax cuts are “stimulative” mean that they will pay for themselves.
As an example, lets say the Tax Cuts result in the economy doubling in the next 10 years.
But with the deficit growing by an additional 3T beyond what it would have .
Lets day the alternative is the economy only increased 50% without the additional 3T in Defict growth. .
Very loosely that is what we are talking about.
It does not require much of a brain to grasp that an additional 50% of growth is the better choice even with a growing deficit.
I would note that once you accept that, you have also accepted that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
That taxes should be cut to stimulate the economy, AND spending should be cut to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
I would further note that will the data conclusively demonstrates that tax cuts are stimulative.
The data further demonstrates that SPENDING CUTS are even more stimulative.
Secret Service costs are no different than under Obama or Bush or …
Personally, I think they are far too high, and I am prepared to join you in changing the law.
But the issue is not “Trump”, it is the law.
Contrary to popular opinion Trump has very little choice with respect to secret service protection.
They’re different in the AMOUNTS $$$$$$ SPENT Dummy.
http://fortune.com/2017/08/25/trump-secret-service-Budget-Money-illegal/
I complained about BO’s excessive spending for trips to NE, HI and his wifes vacations with the kids on multiple global trips. I have the same issues with Trumps spending.
Congress needs to do its job and and clearly define what is covered and what is not. If JR is covered and it costs $2k a day to protect him, then when he goes on a business trip and it cost $20k to protect him overseas, the Trump,Inc should pay the $18k difference.
The other issue is the excessive cost to begin with. What the hell cost a!most $150k per day in NYC. Renting sand trucks and guards can not cost that much!!! Again, congress needs to stop rubber stamping costs without documentation!
Now congress doing their job 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂! Best joke of the day!!
“the Trump,Inc should pay the $18k difference.”
Bzzt, wrong.
The government can not impose the burden of the cost of its laws and requirements on others.
Congress can decide what is covered and what is not.
It can decide that the SS will not protect him on Business trips,
But it can not say you must be protected and you have to pay for it.
Obama, Trump – the same.
I did NOT complain about the SS costs of Obama’s vacations.
But I did complain about the other government covered costs – particularly of family members.
When Obama goes to HI – we can expect that alot of government MUST follow.
When Michelle goes to Africa for vacation the only cost should be security.
The cost of family for vactions is NOT something the government should cover.
Just the EXTRA because they are protected persons.
If you do not like it – change the law.
And no I do not actually beleive the comparisons.
The SS spent a small fortune just protecting the 3 block area arround Obama’s new home that he purchased After the election in Oak Park – they had to create a special government run gated community and some of his new neighbors were pissed.
I personally see no problem significantly scaling back the required by law coverage of the SS.
But it is set by law, and congress has tended to continually EXPAND it rather than shrink it.
It would also help if you left wing nuts would cut our the death threats.
DeVoss has received more Death Threats than any other cabinet secretary, and Pruitt is not gar behind. On top of that, from the whitehouse throught every cabinet secretary, the “#restance” seems to think it is OK got government employees to leak absolutely anything that any presidential appointee does or says.
As an example the story that Trump provided the Russian with information that came from the Israeli’s regarding some terrorist threats – the ONLY classified breach was the person who leaked the story. The president ALONE of all people in the country can decide what classified information he will provide to ANYONE on his own whim.
There is excellent reasons for sharing information regarding possible terrorism with the russians.
Reagan did not “share” the engineering of Steath with the russians but he arranged for their spies to get it. He WANTED the Russians to know that we could overfly Russia safely whenever we wanted, and that to prevent it would cost them hundreds of billions in upgrades to their radar system. The point was NOT to make our forces invincible, but to bankrupt the USSR.
And that was a small part of that. That was also what Starwars was about.
Over the course of 8 years the US spent more on Star Wars than the entire russian military budget. The message was – if only one area pans out – similar to stealth, the USSR can not afford to compete.
The CIA did not know that the USSR was approaching financial collapse. But Reagan had a pretty good idea.
Anyway I am tired of these X’s vacation cost some ridiculous amount of federal money.
I beleive the report on Michelle Obama’s african vacation was over $1M so no I do not beleive Obama spent less.
But yes, we spend way too much.
I personally do not care where Trump goes.
Trump is the first president where The WhiteHouse is Slumming – but if we ever get a president Oprah, there will be two.
Mar-a-lago is Trump’s home. I think he is entitled to go to his home on occasion.
Frankly I think we all would be better off if he spent most of his presidency there.
But if you want to pare back the Secret Service – I am with you 100%.
But change the law.
And last, if you really want me to buy that you care about how much is being spent – then complain about that not Trump.
Most of us understand you would be defending the Spending if it were Hillary.
Besides we are already paying the SS to protect bill on his Lolita express trips.
There is not much that can be accomplished with respect to any of this without a constitutional amendment.
BTW I am not committed to details or what I proposed. Nor unaware that it is not sufficient to say – we are creating some body with the authority to investigate political corruption.
No power can be “unfettered”.
All the above said – the more I study this, the more I must agree with Scalia – ONLY CONGRESS CAN INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT – that is how our constitution is structured – and mostly that makes sense.
I would suggest reading the WSJ editorial by Scalia’s former clerk. He points out that even though Scalia’s more radical position was NOT adopted by the court. The decisions they was actually made would make the SC act, and more specifically Mueller as SC unconstitutional.
You may not have a position within the executive branch of government that has the power to act unilaterally that is not appointed by the president and approved by congress.
Mueller was neither. The court actually decided that properly appointed members of the executive CAN NOT delegate their decision making power.
Rosenstein can delegate the investigation, but he can not delegate, the process of seeking and indictment and prosecuting.
Put more simply because Mueller was not appointed by the president and confirmed by congress, he can only do as directed, he can not act independently, and he can not wield any executive power independently.
I have repeated here over and over and over again. ONLY CONGRESS can investigate the president. That is our constitution.
We need to abide by it, and if we do not like it, amend the constitution.
“Ron, I hope you were being sarcastic. More government in an Ethics wing. Are you Bernie in disguise as a Libertarian.”
You are clueless as to what libertarian means.
Libertaians are not about “less government” they are about “limited government” – that is government performing those specific functions that are the legitimate role of government and nothing else. Punishing corruption within government is part of the legitimate role of government.
Though government alone is not sufficient for that purpose.
“Less government, more honest politicians, ahem.
Finding ethical people would be like the Romans trying to find a Vestal virgin for their parade. It had to be cancelled.”
There is an inherent contradiction in your remarks so I can not tell which parts are serious and which are just sarcasm.
Regardless, though our founders did a less than perfect job, they did understand that an important part of the self regulation of government was to pit interests against interests.
Some complain of “gridlock” and the inability of government to “get things done” that was by design.
Power corrupts – our founders knew that. As great as many of them were – they too were corrupt people.
The structure of the constitution deliberately breaks up the power of government into bits and peices that are independent of each other. The Executive as an example has most of the ability to act – to actually use force to enforce the law. But it has no power to make the law. Convesely congress has the power to make the law, but not the power to act.
This process of pitting one faction against another permeates the structure of the federal government. The object is to make it hard for govenrment to act. To require near unanimity of different factions to accomplish anything.
The default is to be able to do nothing, unless the need is dire.
The objective is not to meet the wishes of the majority, but to act only when there is near universal agreement.
That division is a major factor in restraining corruption – the less independent power a congressmen has they less anyone is willing to pay to rent that power.
Quid Pro Quo Traitor
Trump will profit from Indonesian resort project that will get $500 million in Chinese loans in a deal sealed days before before his tweet ordering help for ZTE.
Silence from GOP #Trumpanzees
President Trump is NOT Running the Trump business. DJT Jr is.
His job, as that of anyone running a business is to profit.
I know you think that is evil.
I also find it very bizzarre – first you are pissed at Trump for starting atrade war with china, then you are upset when he backs away ?
It’s not who’s RUNNING it, dummy.
It’s who’s PROFITING from it.
Are you really that dense?
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.“
Do you actually read what you write ?
Has Trump been offered a title of nobility ?
All gifts to presidents are handled by the whitehouse and remain the property of the US government.
The emoluments clause was NEVER intended as you are ludicrously applying it.
You do know that Washington owned approximately 20% of the land in the US at the time of his presidency, and that he was Selling it to people.
And in fact he was using the federal government and the courts to remove people who were “squatting” on his land.
Grow up. Quit trying to reinterpret every single law to criminalize Trump’s existance.
More than half of the Emoluments cases have been tossed as ludicrously stupid.
The remained have been narrowed so much that Trump can lose and they will still be meaningless. The reason is activities that are the normal course of business are NOT Emoluments. The clause does NOT mean you have to live in poverty as president.
It does NOT mean that you must cease all business you may previously have had, or sell it or put it into blind trust.
In fact it does not even mean you can not engage in bribery – that would still be illegal and still a crime, but it would NOT be a violation of the emoluments clause.
The constitution was EXPLICITLY intended to be read precisely and narrowly.
Meaning with the greatest individual liberty and the least government powers.
Read the federalist papers, read the bill of rights – particularly the 9th and 10th amendments.
Quit making this garbage up.
And you don’t seem to know the difference between a sanction and a tariff.
ZTE was sanctioned over security concerns. If Trump was interested in undoing his tariff fuck-up, he could have cancelled or severely reduced them.
Trump backs China with a fix for ZTE, a company that has cheated on Iran and North Korea sanctions and poses a cyber threat to U.S. Caving to China on ZTE appears to be an easy way for Trump to snag a $500M Chinese loan and a big piece of the action in an Indonesia theme park.
“And you don’t seem to know the difference between a sanction and a tariff.”
Nope – in this context it does nto matter and I do not care.
Trump approved the ZTE sanctions – my guess is that he had people ACTIVELY looking for sanctions to China.
The entire purpose was to leverage the Chinese. and improve his negotiating position.
Go read his damn book – the art of the deal.
The best negotiator gives concessions to the other side that are things that were theirs in the first place.
“Trump backs China with a fix for ZTE, a company that has cheated on Iran and North Korea sanctions”
Given that I have REPEATEDLY said that “sanctions” against other nations are NOT the business of the federal government (any more than Tarrifs are) why would you think this argument is meaningful to me.
If you do not like ZTE’s conduct – do not buy from them – your choice.
“poses a cyber threat to U.S.”
How about clear language.
Germany poses a cyber threat to the US – they are smart and have the capability.
We punish people or companies for their ACTS not for our FEARS.
I Opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq for exactly this reason.
Sadam, the Ayatolahs’s Kim Un – all the same, dangerous people, a threat, one we should watch out for. But the fact that they are a threat justifies our being prepared.
It DOES NOT justify our ACTING.
“Caving to China on ZTE appears to be an easy way for Trump to snag a $500M Chinese loan and a big piece of the action in an Indonesia theme park.”
And you know these are all tied because ?
BTW China does not control indonesia and infact has a poor relationship with them.
China and Indonesia are fighting over the South China Sea – and the US – under Obama and the UN found against China. But until Trump that finding was only WORDS.
Trump has ACTIVELY been flying the flag all over the South China Sea, making it prefectly clear that the US does not accept China’s termtorial claims.
Now that would be a real reason for Indonesia to be Trump freindly.
And AGAIN – do you know the difference between and Asset and a Liability ?
A loan is NOT a gift – it is something you have to pay back.
I know that the US Government tends to loan money to people without expecting them to pay it back – which brought us the housing boom and bust.
But people = even rich people rarely loan their own money without expecting it back with interest.
I am considering buying another apartment building – that will require LOANS.
Those are not gifts. Banks will loan me money when I ask – because I have an excellent reputation for fiscal integrity. But they will still expect to be paid back – with interest.
Dave, you’re an apologist for treachery against your own country.
“Dave, you’re an apologist for treachery against your own country.”
Do you read the garbage you write before posting it ?
You wonder why Trump won in 2016 ?
People like you are WHY ?
All you are capable of is insults, and not particularly good ones at that.
Now you have jumped from Trump to me ?
Is everyone who disagrees with you an evil traitor ?
I am so happy that I am not you.
All you do is make more enemies.
Very little of this has much of anything to do with Trump.
You are going to destroy anyone who gets in your way.
You keep saying you are not on the left – then why are you so hard to tell from the “radical left” ?
Your hatred is a cancer inside you that is destroying you – not Trump, not me.
If Trump actually was the evil creature you pretend, two things would be true.
First you would not have to work this hard to take him out, he would self destruct on his own.
Second after digging into all of this for two years – you would have found something of substance by now.
I have warned you of the stupidity of steping up onto a moral soap box.
When you accuse another – Trump, Me, andyone else,
You MUST be right. Because if you are not you destroy yourself.
If you are wrong – there are really only two outcomes – you destroy the person you made your enemy – whether they have done anything or not, or you destroy yourself.
I keep pounding away at the moral dangers that come with the use of force.
And you remain oblivious.
Trump is pretty good at bringing out the worst in people.
But he does not bring out anything that is not already there.
You do BTW understand that Loans are something that must be repayed WITH Interest.
Again in one post you argue that Trump is profitijng egregiously and in another that he is borrowing left and right and going bankrupt, and then on occasion, like now you aregue he is profiting egregiously by borrowing money.
Do you know whether your home mortgage is an asset or a liability ?
Both Clapper and Rogers have recently gone on the record stating that the Steele Dossier formed the core of the IC Assement of “russian interferance’ in the 2016 election.
And aparently there are documents and memo’s fromt he time to corroborate this.
Brennan is still steadfastly claiming that is not true – possibly because he testified under oath that the Steele Dossier played no role.
So increasingly this entire mess is being whittled down to the Steele Dossier.
I have said this before – and I will repeat it. I do not care in the slightest that Clinton ran a convoluted scheme to gather dirt on Trump using foreign nationals and even Russian Spy;s to do so.
But you can not argue that Trump is forbidden from trying – lamely and badly and failing to do the same regarding Clinton.
You can not claim it is legitimate for only one party to get dirt on the other.
The “problem” occurs when this becomes the foundation for a government investigation in the midst of a political campaign.
Again to be clear – I do not MOSTLY care that Clinton tried to feed the FBI all this garbage.
With one issue – it is STILL a crime to make false reports of crimes. To the extent those involved with feeding the Steele Dossier to the DOJ/FBI knew that ir was garbage they are guilty of a crime. Mostly I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt here.
If there actually was something real here – we want it reported to law enforcement. We do not want people to fail to report possible crimes for fear of being prosecuted.
All that said it is ABSOLUTELY the responsibility of those in government to verify the information they are provided by others – particularly when the sources are political and the consequences hugely political.
The standards are different for the CIA, DNI and NSA, as well as FBI counterintelligence.
National Security interests usually trump criminal prosecutions and therefore have lower standards.
Though I still think that the Steele Dossier as a source even for counter intelligence is garbage.
It is NOT – and quite obviously NOT sufficient to get a Warrant on a US person – not from FISA not from anywhere.
It is Barely sufficient to open a criminal investigation which must terminate QUICKLY absent substantial corropration – i.e. reaching the standard of “probable cause” for atleast one criminal allegation. Further – while that is the buder to continue the investigation, actually getting a warrant requires that degree of corroboration of the majoroity of the Steele Dossier claims – particularly those that are not available from public information.
It is not sufficient for a source to be likely right ONCE.
Absent meeting those criteria and particularly given the serious danger of government being used as a political tool any investigation must die quickly.
That is not what happened and that is the problem, and that is political corruption.
Aside from the fact that Brennan, Rogers, and Clapper should have kept their mouths shut publicly. The IC is allowed to use even a flimsy basis for further Counter Intelligence based intelligence gathering.
There is an entirely separate distinct problem that the above is NOT what appears to have actually happened. What is starting to be evident is that Brennan started a a clandestine operation against the Trump Campaign Without any basis very early in 2016, and that he did so outside of the agency – beyond the possibility that CIA funded it.
That is entirely inapproriate and likely criminal.
Further it is starting to appear that most of the allegations in the Steele Dossier are driven by Brennan’s operation against the Trump campaign.
That Papadoulis was first lured – not by Russians, but by CIA/MI6 operatives into working with erzatz Russians – solely for the purpose of feeding claims to Steele.
That months after Papadoulis that Page was similarly drawn in. and later another member of the Trump Campaign – probably Gates.
That this forms almost the entire core of the Steele Dossier claims of Russian Collustion.
The above claim sounds crazy – like stuff from Loius MEnsch or from Grassy Knoll conspiracy theorists, or from the stuff Jay posts every day.
But more and more flesh is getting added all the time, and it is strongly consistent with known timelines and who was where and who met who and who knew what when. As well as leaks to the media over the past two years.
Regardless that is a serious crime.
Mueller IS NOT exceeding his investigative authority Judge rules!
JUST IN: U.S. judge rejects Paul Manafort’s motion to dismiss charges in Russia probe, says there are ‘multiple flaws’ in Manafort’s claims that Special Counsel Mueller is exceeding his authority. – Reuters.
Wrong judge, wrong court and wrong argument.
There are TWO separate claims – the one is that the SC law does not give Mueller this much authority.
That argument is pretty solid and the Judge is wrong. There is a reason that Mueller kicked the Cohen matter to SDNYC – he is far outside his scope.
He should have done the same with Manafort.
I would note that argument has TWO parts – the first is the authority the SC law allows to convey, and the 2nd is the authority that Rosenstein actually conveyed.
We can not decide the 2nd without Rosenstein producing his actual authorization which is refuses to do. Which he did not craft until almost 6 months AFTER appointing Mueller – probably because Andrew McCarthy pointed out that his published memo was legal CRAP and did not conform to the law.
The 2nd is whether the law itself grants Mueller that broad authority – on that the Judge is wrong.
I would expect Manafort to appeal, it may take several appeals but he is likely to win.
That does not get him out of this, but it requires the charges to be made by DOJ not the SC.
Put your thinking cap on. The SC is PURELY their to address the circumstance where DOJ can not conduct an investigation on its own. The SC law can not transfer the constitutionally delegated powers of the AG to a third party outside the area of conflict.
You can not appoint an SC just because you want one – further it is strongly arguable that in all matters NOT related to Russia and the Trump campaign – Mueller answers to Sessions NOT Rosenstein. Sessions is only recussed from Russia related aspects of the Trump campaign.
No charges against Manafort have anything to do with either.
I would note that that argument works BOTH with respect to Sessions recusal and to the DOJ as a whole – if there is no conflict, the case belongs to DOJ not the SC.
But the final attack is constitutional – not based on the SC law.
As I noted before a prominent constitutional lawyer – one who clerked for Scalia When Scalia wrote his dissent noting that the IC and SC laws were unconstitional,
That clerk has pointed out that by the MAJORITY decision the existing IC law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL – and that further this is rooted in a very long history of the appointments clause and appointments clause cases.
You can not – by law or any other way, Delegate an executive power – not ANY exceutive power to ANY underling in the entire executive branch, UNLESS that person is APPONTED by the president and CONFIRMED by congress.
This is the well established state of the law. It is way the heads and usually several layers of the top of Federal bureacray are Appointed and approved by Congress.
The AG can sign a criminal complaint or an indictiment, any APPOINTED US ADA can.
Any lawyer hired by the DOJ CAN NOT.
That does not mean Mueller can not investigate. But it does mean he can not prosecute.
I expect that might go all th way to SCOTUS and if it does Manafort is highly likely to win.
If he does not you are talking about a major reversal of centuries of precedent.
The case Scalia Disented from went the other way – but as his clerk pointed out it went the other way speficially because the court found the person being challenged was an INFERIOR position and had no independent power and therefore did not require Presidential appointment and congressional confirmation.
I will give you another really good reason that Mueller is going to lose.
I have been commenting with Ron about a “4th branch” a political corruption branch.
That is essentially what Mueller has made himself right now.
But there is ZERO provision in the constitution for that.
Congress can not create an independent branch of government merely by passing a law.
Mueller is not answerable to the president, and he is not answerable to congress – and Rosenstein is claiming that in this matter neither is he.
That is absolutely NEVER going to fly. As Judge Ellis noted – there is no “unfettered power” in the constitution. even Trump is answerable to congress.
Even Starr was answerable to congress.
At this time there are only 3 branches of the federal government – there is no Mueller branch.
If Mueller is part of the executive – and he is. Then he is answerable to congress, and to the president, and if he has delegated power – like an AG then he must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
End of Story. The odds of SCOTUS buying this are slim to none.
I do not think you with get a 9-0 decision, but you might.
There is BTW a HUGE body of constitutional law on this.
This is actually why Codray quit – because Congress created a position that the president could not fire – Corday was appointed and confirmed, and SCOTUS said – Nope, you can not do that.
There are VERY FEW positions in the federal government of Truly independent power – and I beleive those are unconstitutional – but SCOTUS has massaged them.
The Few positions of independent power – i.e. positions that the president can not fire and can act contrary to the president will, are things like the Federal Reserve.
And the state of constitutional law on those “truly” independent bodies is:
The president must still appoint.
The power can NOT be held by a single person – hence the problem with CPAB,
In otherwords there must be a committee or board – like the Federal Reserve,
and the appointments must be for fixed terms.
I think even those conditions do not pass constitutional muster. But SCOTUS is not going to declare the federal reserve unconstitutional.
But SCOTUS has been absolutely clear – only “inferior” goverment employees those without delegated constitutional power are exempt from the appointments clause.
There is absolutely no way on the planet that Mueller can argue that he is an Inferior governement employee.
I would note that even IG’s who are typically lawyers and have no power to prosecute – are still appointed
Rosenstein was appointed and could prosecute for Mueller – but that is not what has happened.
Blah blah blah.
The judge is wrong and you’re right.
Bleh bleh bleh.
The trial is going forward.
And if Trump pardons Manafort in advance, you’ll applaud that, with the same facetious arguments. Like the rationalizers who applauded witch burning with biblical-legal Mumbo-jumbo references.
“And if Trump pardons Manafort in advance, you’ll applaud that, with the same facetious arguments. Like the rationalizers who applauded witch burning with biblical-legal Mumbo-jumbo references.”
In advance ? No, would be fine with Trump pardoning the whole group NOW – actually months ago. Just as GHWB did.
Many oif Mueller’s charges against manafort go back to 2006 – that is 12 years ago. Have you herd of “statute of limitations” ?
The Tax charges are for issued BEFORE 2014 that Manafort resolved with the IRS in 2014 – you have heard of Double Jeophardy ?
The reason they were not in the original Manafort indictment is that the IRS refused to sign off on them that would be the IRS director that Obama appointed.
Aside from the disaster in Elliots court, Mueller had another disaster recently.
One of the Russian companies Mueller has indicted has decided to defend itself.
And at the start of the process it has come out that atleast one of the other companies DOES NOT EXIST – or more accurately did not exist at the time the activities Mueller charged purportedly occurred. That is A HUGE problem for Mueller – Remember the standard of indictment for a grand jury is “probable cause”, and the standard for a conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt” A prosecutor who can not even properly identify who the criminal is that he has indicted has ZERO credibility.
Last week was a very bad week for Mueller.
“Blah blah blah.
The judge is wrong and you’re right.
Bleh bleh bleh.”
I would have hoped that the judge in question would have taken a stronger stand – but I did not expect so. I ultimately expect that Judge Elliot will capitulate too.
I also expect that Manafort will lose this argument at the appeals court level – I do not beleive that the DC appeals court and the Virgina federal circuit are likely to handle a constitutional issue well.
Trumps record in federal district courts has been poor, in appeals courts it has been split, at the supreme court he mosty wins. He lost recently – on an immigration case brought by Obama, but one that I am sure Trump thought he should win.
But mostly he wins in the Supreme court.
This issue appears to be pretty cut and dried to me. Only inferior positions in the federal government are exempt from the appointments clause, and being inferior requires having no independent authority. Clearly Mueller does not fit that.
All US attorney’s are appointed by the president and approved by congress.
The only “hitch” in this is that most of the prior caselaw runs the opposite way – meaning, Congress OPPOSED a presidential appointment claiming that it had the right to approve.
Whether congress won or not depended on whether the positon was “inferior” or not.
I would specifically note that the Case against CPAB and Cordray was about appointment clause issues and CPAB LOST. That is pretty damning because Cordray was appointed and confirmed the real issue was that the law barred him from being fired and SCOTUS said that if POTUS appoints him, POTUS can fire him.
There are no positions in the executive branch with delegated authority that are not appointed.
There are no positions in the Executive branch that are truly independent that are held by a single person.
While I would go further that is the absolute state of constitutional law at this time.
I have told you repeatedly from the start That you need to do this through Congress.
I have no personal problem with a completely independent prosecutor. But to do so you must amend the constitution.
Otherwise either the prosecutor must be under congress or answerable to the president.
There is no constitutional middle ground.
McCarthy just started reviewing the Strzok Texts – not just the few that have caused outrage, but all of them in chronological order as a means of understanding the Trump Russia investigation,
First they appear to confirm that the CIA/FBI was spying on the Trump campaign BEFORE the FBI Investigation started. They also appear to indicate that the FBI was investigating Clinton merely to dot their eyes and cross their T’s that everyone new from the begining there would never be a prosecution. They also reveal that the WhiteHouse was part of the Trump-Russia investigation from the start and involved in the Clinton investigation, practically on a daily basis.
One of McCarthy’s closing observations is:
The redactions appear to be primarily to protect the players in the investigation – such as the whitehouse, not to protect anything that is actually confidential.
The other thing that McCarthy notes is that if a substantial portion of the Texts are classified – then Strzok and Page also violated the espionage act.
You can not transmit classified information on any device connected to an insecure network – that would include the Cellular text system. Based on McCarthy’s comments approximately 1/3 of the body of Strzok/Page’s texts are redacted.
McCarthy suggests that it is probable that the texts are NOT classified, that they are merely politically embarrasing. A significant portion of what is redacted are the names of people involved in the investigation that have NOT yet been made public.
I would note that ultimately ALL of this is going to get out.
McCarthy further makes note that the DOJ/FBI/WH handled Trump/Russia unusually – the investigation was confined to only top government people, there were exchanges between various top agency people and their peers in other agencies – that is NOT normal, But consistent with excluding career agency staff from a political (and corrupt) investigation, That the Gang of 8 was not notified of this investigation – they are supposed to ALWAYS be notified for counter intelligence operations.
Finally McCarthy notes that he was involved in federal litigation involving classified material and the arguments Rosenstein are making are crap. There is pretty much nothing that FBI/DOJ can preclude sharing with congress. They can require those seeing the material to get cleared. They can control the material itself – meaning allow it to be reviewed in a DOJ/FBI SCIF They can keep detailed records of who accessed it and you can be prosecuted – even a congressmen for leaking it. But that DOJ/FBI will never prevail in depriving congress the information.
I would further note that all those security precautions only apply to truly classified information.
Hiding the names of non-covert US government employees participating in an investigation is NOT classified.
I found this hiding vs not hiding issue quite interesting as Clinton fought Starr tooth and nail over EVERYTHING, asserting priviledges that no one ever heard of an dragging ever single effort to get information through the courts.
Conversely Trump and his lawyers Cobb and Dowd have been fully cooperating with Mueller from the begining – despite Trump’s tweets Mueller has been given everything he asked for and not fought even on things he was not entitled to – such as the Transition team records.
The departure of Dowd and Cobb appears to represent a distinct change in character.
Gulliani is attacking Mueller directly and pointedly noting that the expectation was cooperation would end this quickly and given that Mueller has not ended the witch hunt the era of cooperation might be over. You can expect more court fights.
Another area that will likely change is Trump’s direction to DOJ/FBI.
Cobb and Dowd had Trump NOT directing DOJ/FBI in anyway with respect to the investigations.
That had actually surprised many – such as McCarthy – and even those on the left.
For a long time the DOJ/FBI stonewalling was claimed as evidence of Trump’s guilt – that he was prohibiting the FBI/DOJ from sharing information. Because Trump can order DOJ/FBI to share absolutely anything with Nunes and Grassley, yet he has not.
That appears to be the consequence of Dowd and Cobb’s non-interferance with Mueller policy.
They were too afraid of Mueller’s ridiculously expanded definition of obstruction.
With the change in the Trump legal team the expectation is that Trump will start resisting demands from Mueller and at the same time start ordering DOJ/FBI to provide information fo congress.
If as an example Trump orders DOJ/FBI to turn over the FISA warrants or the Strzok texts unredacted and they refuse to do so – it is near certain they will be fired and there will be no negative consequences for Trump.
Keep your eyes peeled for additional Russian investment in Trump enterprises:
“SCOOP: It’s done. The White House has eliminated the role of cyber coordinator, the top cyber policy job in the administration, responsible for harmonizing all agencies’ activities in the cyber domain. subscriber.politicopro.com/cybersecurity/…
If Trump fired the whitehouse chef – you would claim it is a Russian Conspiracy.
And if it turned out the replacement chef was Putin’s former KGB roommate, you wouldn’t see anything concerning there either.
While I would be surprised if something answering to KGB is not somewhere in the Federal government. No one – except left wing nuts has claimed that Trump has knowingly worked with the KGB. Even Mueller is still not claiming any actual connection between Russia and the Trump campaign or Trump.
This is called Virtue signalling.
It is why most of us find the left horribly hypocritical.
You do not really beleive what you say – or you would live as if you do.
While those who DO NOT beleive as you do are engaged in actual responsible behavior.
This goes way past the environment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
Outside of government we have choices.
When the government provides a service there are no choices.
When those working in a drug lab are faking the results – people get screwed without recourse.
There are myriads of stories like this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-crime-lab-arrested-for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/
Dave, are you surprised at this? I doubt you are given your views of government.
I am not. On the other side of the issue is government inability to fulfill the need they have agreed to fulfill. Last number I saw on DNA backlog of rape kits was over 400,000. NC itself has close to 20,000 and that has been that way for years. Over 30 years ago two teens were raped in Charlotte. Just recently the tested rape kits matched another case where the rapist was charged, convicted and released and he is now convicted of the 1985 rapes.
So where some are falsifying evidence, other evidence nationally is being ignored.
When government tries to do anything that is not strictly limited, things get screwed up and people get screwed. There are just too few of us that recognize that fact. You and I can disagree on some things that government might do, but I think we both agree that government should do much less.
The MA lab is just the tip of the iceberg.
When Republicans rant about Mueller and Comey and McCabe they go out of their way to re-assure that they are not complaining about law enforcement more generally.
But we GENERALLY have massive problems in law enforcement.
Look – we have to be clear – our law enforcement is MOSTLY effective – crimes rates are MOSTLY going down. Homocides are declining, gun crimes are declining (as the nuber of guns rises), Police shootings are declining. Every single thing the left and BLM is complaining about has improved RADICALLY over the past 40 years.
But all the good does NOT mean there is no bad.
After the FBI Labs disaster I beleive arround 2006, the NAS did a review of expert witnesses, and the forensic science used in our criminal processes and they found most expert forensic science to be total crap.
You can not scientifically match hair to an individual. Absent a root and DNA at best you can say blonde, brunette.
You can not match fibers of any kind – everything you see about such things on law and order is junk science.
The quality of finger print matches is FAR lower than juries are typically told.
a 6 point match is garbage anything less than 9pts should never be used to get a criminal conviction.
Matching groves and lands on bullets – something we have seen on TV for decaedes – is junk science. You can not match a specific bullet to a specific gun.
You can usually (not always) identify the caliber of the gun from the bullet after it has been fired.
And last the gold standard of forensices – the DNA tests used most commonly for criminal investigations are very poor quality. They are not nearly as accurate as juries are told, they are highly prone to contamination, and they do not actually prove that the DNA actually matches, they merely establish that SOME PARTS of the DNA match.
At the very best DNA tests (if not contaminated) can legitimately EXCLUDE someone.
But even an exact match in a well done test of the type used by law enforcement has a high probablity of matching close relatives too.
Yet law enforcement and the courts continue to use the same evidence without disclosing the flaws every single day.
I read what was going on with McCabe and Strzok and Page and Urh and Baker and Comey – and no it does not surprise me at all.
Though what I am finding interesting is this SAME group of people keep showing up in EVERY botched FBI investigation and matter over the past 30 years.
We get threads like this:
Trump pardoned Scooter Libby.
Libby was prosecuted by SC Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald was appointed by deputy AG Comey – because Ashworth recused himself.
Mueller was the FBI head.
BEFORE Comey appinted Fitzgerald – CIA informed FBI and DOJ that Plame was NOT NOC at the time of the media leak – in other words there could not possibly be a crime, because she was no longer an under cover agent and could never been one in the future because she was a PUBLIC member of the CIA now. Separately State informed DOJ/FBI that Richard Armatage had inadvertantly leaked Plames name to Novak.
In other words there was absolutely no reason for any investigation and the entire mess was done purely to Torque Cheney.
It is becoming increasingly evident that this is a game that Comey in particularly has been playing for decades. That he effectively has used whatever position he has been in to “blackmail” other powerfull figures into giving him more power. It is increasingly evident that he was blackmailing AG lynch. and Trump sensed immediately when Comey first briefed Trump over the Steele Dossier that something untoward was going on – and he was absolutely correct. We now know that Brennan, Comey and Clapper deliberately setup the brief of Trump so that they could leak the fact that Trump was briefed so that the media could run the story.
The Libby thing is just ONE of the multiple FBI/DOJ messes that tie Most of the same people we are seeing at the moment together.
Whether it is the FBI agent captured in Iran that Mueller worked with a Russian Ologarch that is now a target in the Trump/Russia investigation (and therefore a huge conflict for Mueller) or the Anthrax debacle, or ….
Over and over we see Mueller, Comey, McCabe Rosentein, Several members of Muellers team, Fitzgerald. … all as the cabal associated with the mess.
I am actually finding it odd that so many in washington called Comey someone with integrity – I hope we are passed that, but it is increasingly evident that Mueller does not have this stellar reputation.
What is true is that the top people – Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein – are NOT partisan – the next tier – McCabe, Strzok, Page is quite partisan.
But not partisan is not the same as honest, trustworthy or not corrupt.
I want to connect two threads.
I have had an exchange mostly with Ron about a hypothetical fourth branch of government essentially a public integrity branch.
The chances of such a thing are pretty much nil. It would require a constitutional amendment, and it would have to be worked out with incredible care – which will never happen, because the inintended consequences are potentially enormous
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watchers ?
Regardless of the myriads of issues that would have to be resolved, I am absolutely in favor of subjecting everyone in public service to continuous and deep scrutiny.
I have argued against the Mueller investigation.
I have ZERO problem with the principle of investigating the crap out of anyone in public service.
In fact I think that is an excellent idea. I think it is a tremedous disincentive to misconduct, and a very effective tool in chocking government.
But principles are not situational.
If we are going to subject Trump to a Mueller investigation – which it is increasingly evident was a setup from the start, we MUST subject ALL presidents to the same scrutiny.
And in fact we should go much deeper than just the president.
Obama continues to state his presidency was scandal free – but that is just words, and the evidence says otherwise. More and more information is coming out about Louis Lehrner’s misconduct at the IRS – and it is increasingly unconscionable that she has not been convicted.
But she is long out of office and no one cares. And that is a serious problem. If there are no consequences, we will see the same misconduct again.
I am also very bothered because all of the “Get Trump!” crowd would entirely invert their arguments if this were Clinton or Obama.
While much damaging about the DOJ/FBI/CIA investigation into Trump is coming out, there is as much or more that is demonstrating that the DOJ/FBI actively sought to thwart any serious investigation of political corruption of misconduct during Obama’s tenure.
Anyone pretending the law is different when applied to republicans or to Trump is both lawless and a hypcrit.
At this point I actually do want DOJ/FBI to re-open all of its investigations into Obama era misconduct. And I want people to go to jail.
Not because I have some axe to grind with Obama or the left, but because We SHOULD hold public servants to very high standards. We must begin somewhere and historically, the left has been far more likely to avoid being held accountable.
If we jail a number of people from the Obama administration for political corruption,
We can hope that those in the Trump administration will think it could be them next.
And I want them to think that.
With specific respect to the Mueller witch hunt – it needs to end.
If we are going to do this kind of thing – then we need to do so constitutionally.
Right now investigating a sitting president can only be done by congress.
My key objection to the Mueller investigation are that it is unique.
If we are going to do this kind of thing – it can not be something specific to Trump.
We just finished 8 years were a wide assortment of very serious crimes in the executive were not investigated or prosecuted.
We are now anally probing the Trump campaign over nothing.
Decide what you are going to do – and then treat everyone the same.
More treachery from the Right.
Did you actually read what you linked to ?
The NRA actually meets with a group in Russia that is the Russian equivalent of the NRA in the US – and they talk, and the Russian NRA has actual Russians as members. And Putin is a “russian”.
You also understand that the purported repeated requests to establish a backchannel to putin are proof that there was no back channel to putin.
Do you understand that the entirety of the NRA’s political activity in 2016 – in fact the entirety of the NRA’s budget for a decade is FAR less than the amount of illegal campaign contributions that Clinton has admitted to receiving ?
BTW do you understand that the Clinton’s took money DIRECTLY from Russians.
The cited section of the report really says nothing.
By the standard of proof you are using – the Money from Russian Oligarchs to the Clinton Foundation is indisputable proof of corruption – rather than something worth looking into.
The NRA ran political adds during the campaign.
I do not beleive they ran adds specifically favoring Trump.
We have a claim that the NRA MIGHT have received some money from an affiliated gun rights group in Russia that has members who has some ties to Putin.
You do understand that is like saying that the money from Russan oligarchs to CF went to Obama.
You keep trying to sell this Person X is “linked” to putin as meaning Putin actually did something, or the Russian government actually did something.
Or Try this the other way – if Carl Icahn gives money to the Russian organization “the right to bear arms” would that be Trump interfering in Russian elections ?
You continuously buy into the claim that because two people know each other that one is always acting for the other.
Separately we already Know that overatures from Putin to meet with Trump occurred repeatedly. beleive that Papadoulis is on the record forwarding them.
We also know that Manafort specifically tanked them. I am pretty sure we have an email from Manafort directing people to absolutely not respond to requests to meet with Putin.
There would have been nothing legally wrong with Trump meeting Putin,
My guess is that Manafort did not like the political optics.
My guess is that you also have requests from Putin to meet with Clinton.
You keep playing this stupid game that Putin favored Trump heavily.
The tiny bit of advertising that was done by ISA split fairly evenly between Clinton and Trump.
As I have argued repeatedly, Putin would have been far better off with President Clinton than President Trump. Russia’s interests are far better served by Clinton’s policies that were hostile to US energy production. And you continue to forget that the Clinton’s were in bed to the tune of hundreds of millions with Russian Oligarchs.
There is absolutely zero reason to beleive that Russia favored Trump.
The NRA has fully disclosed all “Russia linked contributions”.
There are NONE. I made the mistake of assuming there was atleast some truth in a media story.
The NRA went through there records for anyfunds that were in any way tied to russia over 3 years.
That included dues paid by russians living in the US – and dues paid by americans living in russia.
Those were the ONLY funds that were Russia linked. These receipts were mostly from US citizens. Over 3 years prior to the election the TOTAL amount was 2300.00
This is your idea of Russian influence
This also raises the other misrepresentation – LIE that is coming constantly from the left.
There are purportedly 6 degrees of separate between any two people in the world.
When you say someone knows someone who knows someone who knows Putin – that is NOT proof of anything.
Every person of russian heritage is not a russian agent.
The Trump Tower meeting with Natalia occured as a result of the indirect intervention of a Russian Pop Singer that the Trump’s became freinds with during the 2013 Mis Universe Paegent.
Many of us are suspicious what the real quid pro quo was for Clinton’s half million dollar speeches in Russia. But suspicion is not proof of a crime.
Though 500K for a single speech is much more dubious than 2300 in dues over 3 years.
You can lie, but you can’t hide from the lies forever.
“(Reuters) – President Donald Trump acknowledged for the first time that he repaid his attorney Michael Cohen for a payment of at least$100,001 made to a “third party” in 2016, according to ethics disclosures signed by the president that were released by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on Wednesday…”
“Trump’s new disclosure statement did not describe the purpose or the recipient of the 2016 payment made by Cohen. But the acting director of the ethics office, David Apol, in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said it should have been disclosed in ethics documents that Trump filed in June 2017. Apol’s letter was released with the Trump disclosures.
The ethics office is a government watchdog that provides oversight of the executive branch program designed to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest.”
You seem to beleive that you are entitled to accurate information about things that are not your business.
Cohen got Daniels to agree to an NDA for 130K – that is really the end of the story.
In the event the NDA was drafted properly – Daniels now Owes Cohen $1M for violating the NDA.
My guess is that she is doing well enough from the publicity that she can manage that – if not I think her legal fees kickstarter is sufficient.
Trump may or may not have hired Cohen to get the NDA – honestly that is not really clear – nor is it our business.
You really do not seem to get that you are just not entitled to know whatever you want about other people.
My Guess is that Cohen did this entirely independently. I further speculate that when Guliani came on board and grasped that Trump was not throwing Cohen under the bus, that Guliani decided that it would be better for Cohen/Trump if Trump had hired Cohen – then Cohen is Trump’s lawyer for that transaction. There is nothing illegal about the transaction and the SDNYC can not get at that part of Cohen emails etc because of priviledge.
But that is merely my guess. Honestly it does not matter to me at all.
Whether Cohen acted independently or Trump paid him, NDA’s are legal.
The only question is whether Cohen crafted his well enough that it is binding.
In which case as I said Daniels owes Cohen $1m in liquidated damages.
You can drool over the story all you want.
Maybe some voters will change their votes – though the Daniels story is not resonating with Trump voters.
Oddly Daniels is doing extremely well at her public appearances – Trump voters wearing MAGA hats are getting her signature.
Daniels herself is working hard to avoid making any of it political.
She wants the publicity benefits of being the Porn Star who slept with the President without becoming a political figure.
And she is dancing a tightrope – most of her crowdfunding for legal fees is coming from the left.
But most of her publicity profits are coming from Trump supporters.
“CONFIRMED: After a thorough review, Senate Intel has found no evidence to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia, on orders from Putin, carried out an unprecedented election interference effort to help the Trump campaign and hurt the Clinton campaign in 2016.”
I have no idea what your source for this is, but it is false.
The entire IC except Brennan has backpeddled on the IC report and now claims the sole source was the Steele Dossier.
Brennan is in a bind because he has repeatedly TESTIFIED under oath that the Steele Dossier had nothing to do with the IC assessment.
Both Rogers and Clapper are on the record under oath contradicting that.
Like it or not the IC assessment is DOWN THE TUBES.
I would remind you that we ALSO know – I beleive from both the house and senate that FVEY provided NO INTELLIGENCE to the US regarding Russian campaign interference – Again that is on the record and public.
That REQUIRES that whatever the IC used in its assessment – did not come through normal intelligence channels or operations.
Whatever your story source – it is wrong.
I would also note that the Senate released all of the testimony related to the July Trump Tower meeting. Right down to Manaforts contemporaneous notes.
The bottom line is no one has contradicted Trump Jr. statement.
Trump Jr. was promised unspecified dirt on Clinton.
Natalia brought some useless financial information on Browder – that likely came from Fusion GPS.
The entire rest of the meeting was about the Magnivinsky act and Russian adoption.
And most of the participants left early because no one in the Trump campaign gave a damn about that.
“I have no idea what your source for this is, but it is false.”
The source is the Senate Subcommittee, you moron, from Senator Burr, Republican Committee Chairman.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2018/05/the_latest_senate_intel_panel_agrees_with_us_intel_agencies
If you are going to call me a moron – you should read your own links.
Your original quote can from Senator Warner.
The 2nd link is about the Trump Jr. Meeting – but cites a quote from Burr, NOT a final report.
And if you read the quote he does NOT confirm the report, he merely says he does nto dispute it – those are NOT the same thing.
Regardless we already know the Report is garbage – we have Rogers and Clapper admitting that it was driven solely by the Steele Dossier and we KNOW that it was NOT produced through the normal process or using the normal analysts. It was NOT a 17 IC group assessment, it was the work of 3 people hand picked by Clapper, Rogers and Brennan who were told the conclusion at the start.
As a practical matter – we do not need a report to know that “russia tried to interfere with the US election”.
Pick an election – any election, that is a given, just as the US tries to influence elections in Russia and elsewhere.
We also know that Russia has tried to hack out power grid. After stupid scary news stories the actual hacking turns out to have been innocuous. Regardless, there is good reason to be concerned about hostile foreign powers conducting cyber attacks on US critical infrastructure.
Preparing for that should just be a given.
There is some evidence – though it gets weaker the more I hear, that Russia tried and failed to attack or voter registration systems in several states.
Again something we should assume foreign powers might do and prepare for.
I am already on record – long before Trump saying the Bush 2000 HAV electronic voting machines are a very very bad idea.
Trump formed a presidential commision to look into that as well as Voter Fraud and because the left did not want any actual data to be discovered demonstrating the ease and likely frequency of in person voter fraud in the US they tanked the commission.
Anyway those things are known, and they are not new.
I repeat: you are a moron.
If a judge in a murder trial asked about the jury death verdict decision says he doesn’t dispute the facts presented at trial or the verdict, you seriously saying that him not specifically saying he confirms it is significant?
You’re like a dunce in a raincoat in pouring rain saying it isn’t really raining because your skin is still dry.
So I am reading all your personal insults and decided to look up what you seem to be referring to between insults.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-jr-unapologetic-when-questioned-about-meeting-with-russian-lawyer
Is this what you are referencing?
If so, is this something new? I remember this when I was following all the committee and investigative information a few months ago.
Has something changed?
No, not referring to your link.
Scan up to my comment about Senate Select Committee Report on Intelligence.
I’ve about had it with this WordPress thread.
Took me 15 minutes to get the comment formatted
Too annoying and time consuming to continue here, unless DD finds an emptier thread.
Well on the home page for the new moderate, Baby Boomers only has 3 comments. This one is starting to give me problems and finding anything is impossible.
Your claimed “exhoneration” of the IC is based on remarks by Sen. Warner who has said lots of stupid stuff. I beleive an offhand comment by Sen. Burr that is not enthusiastic support, and at best a casual response to a reporters question.
I am not positive – but I do not beleive there is an actual report at this time.
I beleive you also alldued to the claims that the Russians were funding the NRA.
While in the strictests sense possible – is true, it is also ridiculously stupid as a meaningful claim.
Persons of russian origne in the US paid dues to the NRA and US citizens residing in Russia paid dues to the NRA – over 3 years totalling 2300.
That money was used like all dues – and some of it went to political action.
There is NO violation of any campaign finance law – not even by the most broad and stupid interpretation.
The NRA was certain to vigorously oppose Clinton – I think they even supported Bernie – they definitely did in the past, no matter who ran against her.
“If a judge in a murder trial asked about the jury death verdict decision says he doesn’t dispute the facts presented at trial or the verdict, you seriously saying that him not specifically saying he confirms it is significant?”
Lousy analogy.
The only thing that a Senate committee and a trial have in common is they tend to involve testimony under oath and subpeonad witnesses.
A senate hearing is an inquiry, an investigation.
A jury trial is a weighing of previously acquired evidence.
A committee chair aside from their role maintaining order, is one of many finders of fact, with one vote just like the others.
A judge in a jury trial is NOT a finder of fact, Absent being convinced that the Jury failed its assement of the facts thoroughly a judge is REQUIRED to accept the juries findings of fact.
He can not legally dispute them.
“You’re like a dunce in a raincoat in pouring rain saying it isn’t really raining because your skin is still dry.”
More bad analogies.
Try this a different way.
Is Adm. Rogers lying ?
James Clapper has lied under oath repeatedly, but in this instance he is confirming Rogers, not Brennan.
Are you saying that the House finding that the FBEY’s group did not have any Trump Russian intelligence and did not pass any to the US is false ?
As well as the numerous news stories confirming that ?
Are you saying that there are CIA Analysts or NSA Analysts that can confirm Brennan’s claims that there is actual intelligence regarding Trump/Russia ?
If so where are they ? Why haven’t we heard from them ?
In the entire Trump/Russia investigation – Strzok is the LOWEST Ranked federal officer we have heard from, and he is the only one that is not a presidential appointee.
We have nothing but the word of a bunch of heads of departments all of whom have been repeatedly caught lying in public and many of whom have been caught lying under oath.
Are you challenging the story that Strassel ran in WSJ – that was confirmed by NYT and has been expanded on by Strassel as well as numerous other journalists now ?
Can you name a single instance EVER where CIA/FBI have investigated a political candidate – much less a presidential candidate ?
We now have the “spy” operation starting Before the DNC was hacked,
So what is the evidence that the FBI/CIA used as the basis for spying on a political campaign that existed at that time ?
Your source appears to be Sen. Warner.
He has said lots of things that have subsequenctly proven false.
He is a very unreliable source – the senate version of Adam Schiff
Let’s see if you not too dumb to get the drift and focus of Tillerson’s remarks here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387971-tillerson-warns-of-growing-crisis-in-ethics-and-integrity-in-commencement
Well something that is not Trump news!
Ones reputation takes years to build depending on your life and profession. Your reputation is easier to create amoung friends, while harder to build professionally. Both can be destroyed in one unethical action and rebuilding a reputation will once again take years.
What we have witnessed for many years is the destruction of political figures reputations due to unethical actions on many issues. IMO this led to DT becoming a viable candidate and getting elected because the reputation of all politicians was so low, not enough people in the GOP cared if they had a candidate that they would be proud to call Mr. President.
This same destruction is occurring with the media today. While in the past journalist were thought to be honest and their reputation reflected that, now we have individuals like Limbaugh, Hannity and Maddow to Twitter trolls that post information while claiming to be journalists. Those individuals are making journalists the fourth leg of the most unethical professions. Politicians, lawyers, used car dealers and now journalists.
When you find the number of trusted politicians leaving, such as those over the past 4 years and those like Richard Burr, who has decided not to run when his term is up, even though he is relatively young for a politician, the trend line for more ethical and moral leadership is not trending in the right direction.
Either party.
Mostly I agree with you.
My minor differences.
Ethics are very important to me. But in my experience those people who hold themselves and others to high ethical standards are done for if they get caught on the wrong side of a matter of ethics. While those who do not hold themselves to high standards tend to get away with alot.
Contra the left and too much of the rest of us – among the least ethical people in this country are politicians, with those in government in any form not far behind, while those in business are by far the most ethical. We have hundreds of billions of exchanges occuring every day. actual fraud or business misconduct is very rare and we all hear all about it. While misconduct amoung politicians is extremely common.
Trump won the nomination and the election because he better understood where the country was at. Because he grasped what no one else did – that blue collar democrats were prepared to jump ship. Because he grasped that large parts of the country are very frustrated by the snowflake PC culture that is being rammed down our throats.
Trump is not my kind of guy. But I think he may be the president we needed.
I really pay very little attention to the spats between him and the press.
I am happy that he is pushing back at the press HARD.
But I think we are in the midst of a major shift in the way we get informed.
Trump is merely accelerating it. Trump is fighting with the dinosaurs who are about to become extinct. And I do not care much.
With respect to journalists – one of the problems is that the actual rules of journalist ethics are corrupt.
Journalists have rules that they do follow pretty rigidly regarding sources and stories and what can be printed. But those rules do NOT insure that something is accurate. Only that it is sourced.
The Brennan/Clapper/Comey game regarding the Steele Dossier is a beautiful example.
The Press had the Steele Dossier before the election – but NO ONE was able to verify any of it well enough to print. But the ethics rules of journalism do not say that something must be true to print, it just must have a credible source. If one paper runs something everyone knows is garbage – the rest will follow – because they van ethically report that another peoper reported something.
If they get a leak that Comey briefed Trump on the Steele Dossier – they can print the allegations in the Steele Dossier – even though they know they are crap – because their ethics are met by the hook that the presidident elect was briefed on it.
The rules of ethics of journalism are not about reporting the truth.
Journalists also live in a bubble. Much of our media has almost no connection to half the population of the country. The left and the media live in a bubble. They do not understand that half the country does not share their values.
.
“Trump is not my kind of guy. But I think he may be the president we needed.”….
that blue collar democrats were prepared to jump ship. Because he grasped that large parts of the country are very frustrated by the snowflake PC culture that is being rammed down our throats.”
I get that! But there are many individuals in this country that do not give a damn what people think of them, act in the best interest of those involved with them and themselves, is a person of integrity and follows ethical behaviors, but politics are so tainted they would never step into that rhelm. Just look at what happened to Tillerson in his short period in the administration. To many, is his reputation better now?
Trump is a product of red neck America and Blue collar labor democrats that provided him the early support in primaries that froze out money for those like Bush from supporters that did not want to be tied to a loser.
Yes Trump is doing what is needed. He is forcing congress to “address” issues. Issues like net neutrality and DACA are not EO issues. However, individuals with good reputations and doing actions needed in government are a thing of the past.
“However, individuals with good reputations and doing actions needed in government are a thing of the past.”
I like Thomas Jefferson alot. But I can not with a straight face call him a man of integrity.
Many of our founders were deeply flawed people, who still said and did great things.
There is alot about FDR I loath, and I think he was in many ways a disasterous president and we still suffer from the damage he wrought. He was also a pretty repugnant human being.
But I am reasonably convinced he is one of the greatest war time presidents we ever had.
Are you going to try to call JFK, and RFK and Ted man of high moral character and integrity ?
Even MLK leaves alot to be desired as a person.
Then we have LBJ, and Nixon – are those your examples of past integrity ?
I increasingly respect Bill Clinton as a president – particularly economically.
But he is a sexual preditor. Trump is tame in comparison.
There is alot wrong with the present. But it is a mistake to pretend that our leaders are especially corrupt today.
I do not like Trump’s style, at the same time I think that he and the press deserve each other, and I mostly ignore the battle of words between them.
I disagree with many of Trump’s policy decisions. But I agree with more than any president since Clinton, possibly since Reagan.
I would further note that despite the rants of those like Jay, and Trump has honored more of the campaign promises that he has made than any other political candidate in my life time.
Even promises I hoped he would not.
I do think a persons words are important.
But their PROMISES are more important.
And their actions are most important.
You only addressed one comment I made. You did not address the second part, the forth leg of the stool.
I agree with your assessments of past presidents. The issue is if the current understanding of government officials was known then, how would the press, under that periods practices, addressed those issuex.
“You only addressed one comment I made. You did not address the second part, the forth leg of the stool.”
Either I agreed or I did not disagree in a way I thought was important.
Our positions on many issues are close.
You have more faith in government than I do, but more fear of the future – I am not saying bad things are not in the offing, only that will will survive and ultimately thrive.
I think ethics is incredibly important.
I do not think we need to do much of anything about private ethics. While there are and always will be unethical private actors the system self regulates – not perfectly, but we have nothing that does better.
Public ethics are horrible. Worse there is no real self regulation.
I do not know what the answer is. but I would be happy to look at any change.
But my BIG point is that solving the problems with government must involve changes to government.
I am not interested in new election laws or other ways to punish private parties for their means of trying to work with government.
It is the ethics and actions of public servants that needs constrained.
You do not combat obesity by shooting the cook.
“Either party,”
I agree.
But the focus has to be on the unethical party in power. Drain the SwampCreatures at the top of the swamp, as they’re doing the most harm when in power.
You say you want to hold those in power accountable – these people WERE in power.
I agree with you in principle – with one critical distinction.
It is those USING the power of government that must be held not merely accountable, but to the highest standards.
I will be happy to hold DJT to high standards in his exercise of power as president.
If you wish to discuss examples where he has used the power of the president, the power of the federal government to commit crimes, to punish enemies or opponents – make your case.
We are so far past the point at which it is beyond dispute that the Obama administrations conduct was Worse than Nixon’s. Strzok’s texts confirm that from early July forward the Whitehouse was being briefed 3 times a week on the Investigation into Trump.
We have numerous examples of high ranking members of the Obama administration lying under oath.
We have repeated efforts for 18 months by DOJ/FBI stonewalling the investigations into their conduct.
As we slowly pry out what they are hiding it is evident that ALL that is being protected is their own misconduct.
And this you care nothing about. But you rant constantly about Trump-Russia collusion that was not, and is not now based on anything.
If you want to punish the abuse of power – why not this ?
Frankly If Trump actually did what is claimed – that would be LESS egregious.
I would further note that we were told when the IRS was targeting political enemies prior to a different election – that that was purely accidental and did not go outside of a single small office in the IRS.
Why should we beleive that NOW ?
We have repeated efforts by this past administration to spy on political enemies or use the power of government against political enemies. Or to protect political friends.
Horowitz has purportedly made Criminal referals to US ADA Hunt regarding prosecutorial misconduct during the Clinton Email investigation.
We now learn that Avantti’s source for the Cohen funds transfers was s leaker in Treasury, who was upset because the information was secured from access – AT MUELLERS REQUEST.
BTW leaking Treasury data on financial transactions is a crime. .
It is possible that Avantti’s public release of the information is also a crime.
It is certainly an abridgement of the rules of professional ethics.
During an election when Nixon could not get the FBI to spy on political enemies, he had AG Mitchell put together a team of off book CIA operatives who broke into the Democratic headquarters in the watergate and bugged their phones.
Ultimately Nixon resigned over that and many people went to jail.
The information I provided a few days ago has all but been completely confirmed, by WSJ, NYT, and several others citing former and current government sources.
Since all of this is atleast once removed – it is likely that some small details will prove different.
What is CLEAR at this point is that SOMEBODY in the Federal govenrment – Probably Brennan though possibly the FBI or even someone in DoD was running and intelligence operation against the Trump campaign BEFORE The Steele Dossier, BEFORE the Carter Page Warrants, Before the DNC leak, Before Papadoulis remarks to Downer.
Nearly all the reporting is consistently telling the same story – differing only on specific dates – where dates are given.
Please explain to me HOW that is different from what Nixon TRIED and failed to do ?
HOW that is not WORSE than what Nixon actually did ?
I have no problems with Tillerson’s remarks.
We have very little information on the problems between Tillerson and Trump.
What I know is that I was happy with Tillerson’s freeze of State department hiring, and I am very unhappy that Pompeo lifted it.
I was happy with the the foriegn policy initiatives that occured while Tillerson was at state,
Though given the heavy Whitehouse involvement in the Mideast and Korea, and China, it is hard to tell whether Tillerson or Trump was responsible.
Regardless, whoever was responsible for foreign policy in Trump’s first year gets Kudos.
I would further note that you trashed Tillerson – until it was rumoured that Tillerson was saying things about Trump.
As to Ethics and facing facts – absolutely we have huge problems in those.
We so far have atleast 3 and possibly more ranking members of the Obama administration who have lied under oath in the past year. I think we have a huge ethics problem in government.
I suspect that Trump and Tillerson were at odds on Trade.
Though even that appears to be complex. I do not like Trump’s methods, but he has been getting results in the area of Trade. While he scares me, he has thus far not started a trade war and he is improving US trade deals. The right choice is to just move to unilateral free trade with everyone.
But neither party is doing that. Trump is wrong about trade – but less wrong than Clinton would have been
There are myriads of other facts that we are not facing that we should – such as that we can not continue spending so much indefinitely. Again neither party is prepared to address that.
Maybe Tillerson was talking about Trump – maybe he was talking about the stupid views of Climate warmists – Tillerson is after all from exxon.
This is not a good result for anyone. Further division in politics. Choices of total government control or total government infringement in personal actions. Far left v far right.
Where are the sensible voters who want sensible government that does what people need and not what special interest want?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/17/liberal_wins_in_primaries_cheer_some_democrats_worry_others_137059.html
There are all kinds of interesting patterns and conflicts going on.
Women candidates from both parties are winning in extraordinarily high numbers.
Actually moderate democrats are winning – even against moderate republicans in special elections.
But any republican thus far beats a left of center democrat.
Mostly Republican primaries are going as expected.
Mostly republicans are avoiding more Roy Moores.
But Democrats – particularly in suburban areas are putting fairly progressive contenders into the general election.
Democrats are ALWAYS likely to have fairly progressive candidates from urban areas.
Republicans are llikely to have very conservative candidates from rural areas.
But either parties odds of winning decline the further from the center they are.
The current crop of democrats wining primaries are much less likely to win – absent a large “blue wave” and that increasingly looks like it will require some highly unanticipated and devastating october surprise.
“Democrats are ALWAYS likely to have fairly progressive candidates from urban areas.
Republicans are likely to have very conservative candidates from rural areas.”
I was not addressing who was going to win and who was not. I was addressing the further movement left for the democrats matching elections like the 9th congressional primary for the GOP in NC, a move from the moderate right to the far conservative right, a former pastor that will support legislation to impose his views on your personal choices. The 9th district is not what you would deem rural since some of Charlotte is included. If I were voting in that district i would be voting Democrats since I do not believe there is a libertarian running and the democrat is more like a California or NY Republican in views.
My question remains, where the hell are the moderate left and right voters these days? Where are the people that will not try to force fat controls, sugar controls, health care controls, abortion controls, marriage controls and all the other controls that the current crop of politicians want to force on us. Why are we getting stuck with these dictatorial candidates on both sides of the isle?
Increasingly I am voting for the libertarian.
Or the outsider.
or against the incumbent.
I am not going to vote for a social conservaitve.
I am not going to vote for a progressive democrat.
I am near certain to vote for a fiscal conservative – if they are not also a social conservative.
Most of the time I do not get to vote for someone I actually like.
I have been voting against the incumbent in PA senate contests for decades.
I beleive I have voted FOR every PA senator – when they were the challenger and AGAINST them when they were the incumbent.
Dear Ostriches Take Your Heads Out Of The Sand!
(I would have said your ‘ass’ but I’m trying to be less insulting)
except the facts and timeline are completely at odds with that.