GAROVORKIN Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 11 hours ago, Yukle said: I'm wondering if that'll actually be the case. There don't seem to be many people who put their reputations before Trump as it is; they're all seen as corrupt now by everyone except his (fairly small compared to the USA at large) base. For whatever reason, time and time again Trump throws people under the bus and people keep volunteering to jump next. He even has lawyers working for him despite a well-known history of not paying up. His current lawyer was never reimbursed for $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels and still works for him. Maybe his charisma is compelling, or he is excellent at getting idiots to follow him, but Trump has an endless supply of people to do his bidding. They volunteer for Trump because regardless of the outcome , they love the 15 minutes of fame that working for Trump will give them. It gives these volunteers material for the tell all books that will be able to write, makes them popular for future lecture circuits that will leads to an even more lucrative future second career after their employment with Donald Trump ends. This is why there will never be a shortage of willing volunteers wanting to run the gauntlet for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 12 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: I guess CNN did not break off with Dershowitz, because Anderson Cooper interviewed him tonight about this tweet. The tweet, he says, is taken out of context. He says he has always been against the appointment of special prosecutors, because their job is to find a crime has been committed, even if there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. For example, a special prosecutor couldn't find anything with regard to the Whitewater scandal, but did find an affair with an intern, itself not illegal, but Clinton lied about it. Dershowitz wrote an article, from which the tweet was lifted, saying that the US is the only country in the world that does so. Instead, he says, the US should use the kind of independent commission used in Great Britain and Israel. We use the same system in Canada, creating what are called Royal Commissions to investigate serious issues. What Dershowitz doesn't mention, however, is the fact that often the report of the commission is tabled in parliament, tossed around like a football, and then quietly shelved because the recommendations are very expensive to carry out. Sometimes the commission reports aren't even made public. However, you have to admit that lying under oath or to the FBI does seem to form the basis for a lot of charges. Dershowitz, however, said at this point in time Mueller should not be fired but should carry on his investigation. He just didn't think he should have been appointed in the first place. And Trump's tweet is misleading. I think the biggest flaw in Dershowitz’s argument is citing the lack of evidence of a crime, considering he had no idea what had been uncovered that wasn’t released to the public. You can’t make absolute claims like he did about an investigation without actually knowing what they had already found. Once you pull that thread the rest of his argument falls apart pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 14 hours ago, Yukle said: I'm wondering if that'll actually be the case. There don't seem to be many people who put their reputations before Trump as it is; they're all seen as corrupt now by everyone except his (fairly small compared to the USA at large) base. For whatever reason, time and time again Trump throws people under the bus and people keep volunteering to jump next. He even has lawyers working for him despite a well-known history of not paying up. His current lawyer was never reimbursed for $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels and still works for him. Maybe his charisma is compelling, or he is excellent at getting idiots to follow him, but Trump has an endless supply of people to do his bidding. It’s why, by and large, he’s surrounded himself with the B team’s B team. There are very few people around him who wound ever be offered jobs in another Administration, and the Republican Congressional leaders outside of McConnell are an embarrassment to their predecessors. Unfortunately Trump rose to power at a time when the historic constraints that should be around him are at their weakest points. Otherwise much of this nonsense would never of happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Something to keep in mind is that there's a big difference between firing Mueller, the person, and ending his investigation. The later involves almost 100 staff and two convened grand juries, none of which goes away if Mueller is fired. And ending it is a much bigger task than just firing Mueller. If Trump got someone to fire Mueller, he could also order them to put a stooge in place to slow-walk the investigation and try to wind it down; but that would not be an easy process. And there's no guarantee the new lead investigator would comply (someone like Scott Pruit would, but it'd be a major demotion for him to be put in charge of the investigation). I still think Mueller is safe anyway though, since firing him doesn't benefit Trump, it just has the potential to hurt him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 This segment from today's Brian Lehrer program was really interesting, in terms of the private law suits orangeade is facing -- which, btw, will continue, no matter what happens with Mueller investigation. One can listen to the broadcast here in a few minutes -- right now the rest of the two-hour program is still in progress, so it's still live: https://www.wnyc.org/story/presidents-ongoing-legal-issues-reddit-reforms-every-school-shooting Quote Elie Mystal, editor-at-large of Above the Law and legal editor for WNYC's podcast More Perfect, discusses the news that a defamation suit against President Trump by a former Apprentice contestant can move forward, plus what the changes (and hints of change) to the president's legal team mean for him with relation to the Mueller investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 On the next episode of Survivor: Orange Island: John Dowd resigns https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/john-dowd-resign-trump-mueller-fbi-russia?utm_term=.sexap8Dv2l#.if6mR7reD5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 23 minutes ago, Fez said: I still think Mueller is safe anyway though, since firing him doesn't benefit Trump, it just has the potential to hurt him. That’s what a smart person would think. But when dealing with Trump, you have to think like someone who thinks like they’re a smart person*. *So in essence, an idiot who thinks they’re always the smartest person in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: On the next episode of Survivor: Orange Island: John Dowd resigns https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/john-dowd-resign-trump-mueller-fbi-russia?utm_term=.sexap8Dv2l#.if6mR7reD5 Said 2 days ago he wasn't going anywhere. Trump said 10 days ago no changes at all to his lawyers and the Fake News was making it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Fez said: Something to keep in mind is that there's a big difference between firing Mueller, the person, and ending his investigation. The later involves almost 100 staff and two convened grand juries, none of which goes away if Mueller is fired. And ending it is a much bigger task than just firing Mueller. If Trump got someone to fire Mueller, he could also order them to put a stooge in place to slow-walk the investigation and try to wind it down; but that would not be an easy process. And there's no guarantee the new lead investigator would comply (someone like Scott Pruit would, but it'd be a major demotion for him to be put in charge of the investigation). I still think Mueller is safe anyway though, since firing him doesn't benefit Trump, it just has the potential to hurt him. By 'firing' Mueller what they mean is ending the special investigation. And that would very likely benefit Trump greatly if there is something bad to find or if they think that Trump will continue to make unforced errors and continue to obstruct justice. Trump is behaving heavily like he thinks the investigation will hurt him, probably because he has done a ton of shady things over the years and knows it. I still don't think he colluded with Russia in any direct, evidence-based way, but I also am totally willing to buy that he's done deals with the Russian mob, had various affairs, cheated heavily on taxes and liabilities, took loans from really shady people and was in general a very immoral businessman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: By 'firing' Mueller what they mean is ending the special investigation. And that would very likely benefit Trump greatly if there is something bad to find or if they think that Trump will continue to make unforced errors and continue to obstruct justice. Trump is behaving heavily like he thinks the investigation will hurt him, probably because he has done a ton of shady things over the years and knows it. I still don't think he colluded with Russia in any direct, evidence-based way, but I also am totally willing to buy that he's done deals with the Russian mob, had various affairs, cheated heavily on taxes and liabilities, took loans from really shady people and was in general a very immoral businessman. Considering how many times he has filed for bankruptcy, is it logical to think that he has been able to hide financial crimes through all of those processes over the years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 I see the latest Republican talking point is that Obama sucked up information on voters with Facebook’s help in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 15 minutes ago, Mexal said: Said 2 days ago he wasn't going anywhere. Trump said 10 days ago no changes at all to his lawyers and the Fake News was making it all up. Was the resignation forced or voluntary? If it’s the former, it’s just another example of someone getting canned shortly after the President says their job is safe. If it’s the latter, it speaks to just how toxic the situation is in the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: Considering how many times he has filed for bankruptcy, is it logical to think that he has been able to hide financial crimes through all of those processes over the years? Absolutely, because 'he' hasn't filed for bankruptcy, his companies have. Note that the above is probably true for any businessperson in the US, especially ones living on the margins and not actually living on the strength of a company but instead living on the strength of their brand. It's also probably true for most real estate developers, which have often been quite hand in hand with crime. Manafort is a good example here: what he has done is pretty clearly money laundering, and he did it fairly brazenly - but he did so because, well, 99.9% of the time no one cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Absolutely, because 'he' hasn't filed for bankruptcy, his companies have. Note that the above is probably true for any businessperson in the US, especially ones living on the margins and not actually living on the strength of a company but instead living on the strength of their brand. It's also probably true for most real estate developers, which have often been quite hand in hand with crime. Manafort is a good example here: what he has done is pretty clearly money laundering, and he did it fairly brazenly - but he did so because, well, 99.9% of the time no one cares. Trump has never seemed to recognize much difference between 'his money' and 'his company's money' but I guess we will see. However, I thought that the financial crimes were supposed to have occurred through his businesses and not via his personal finances, maybe I am mistaken there. Isn't Mueller looking for Trump company financials, not Trump personal financials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 19 minutes ago, Kalbear said: By 'firing' Mueller what they mean is ending the special investigation. And that would very likely benefit Trump greatly if there is something bad to find or if they think that Trump will continue to make unforced errors and continue to obstruct justice. Trump is behaving heavily like he thinks the investigation will hurt him, probably because he has done a ton of shady things over the years and knows it. I still don't think he colluded with Russia in any direct, evidence-based way, but I also am totally willing to buy that he's done deals with the Russian mob, had various affairs, cheated heavily on taxes and liabilities, took loans from really shady people and was in general a very immoral businessman. The word "collaborate" is a good one in these circumstance. "Complicit" is also good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: I see the latest Republican talking point is that Obama sucked up information on voters with Facebook’s help in 2012. There may be a kernel of truth in that, just a small one ....I know Project Narwhal aggregated data from multiple sources to build profiles of voters, and I assume Facebook would be one of those sources. Unless it isnt, I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Was the resignation forced or voluntary? If it’s the former, it’s just another example of someone getting canned shortly after the President says their job is safe. If it’s the latter, it speaks to just how toxic the situation is in the WH. From what I've read, it was "mutual." Dowd and Trump disagreed on legal strategy and Dowd didn't like all the reports of Trump trying to find and bring in different lawyers. Trump isn't unhappy with Dowd resigning and I'm sure Dowd is relieved. Seems like Dowd has thought about resigning a number of times over the last few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Republicans aren’t terribly worried about the “swing” districts the DCCC is targeting. They know it’s turf they have to defend and in general swing district incumbents are battle tested by strong challengers every cycle, Good campaigners, Good fundraisers and not terribly unpopular In their respective districts. Given that most incumbents win, I think republicans expect they will flip some seats and lose some seats for mostly a 2012 esque wash that doesn’t affect control of the house. What they are extremely panicked about are all the seats the DCCC doesn’t want to bother to win, because those incumbents don’t want to bother campaigning, because it is no effort to win elections and they’ve never had to face a serious challenge from democrats. In other words, the districts like PA (but that lack the history of being solidly democrat.) right now the DCCC stupidly expects to make huge gains in California giving republicans the tremendous tactical advantage of shoring up defense in one place. the DCCC should be attacking where their opponent is weak, and republicans are openly admitting they are weakest in the safe republican seats that are usually not contested. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/midterm-elections-lazy-republicans-477542 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wedge Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 23 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: I see the latest Republican talking point is that Obama sucked up information on voters with Facebook’s help in 2012. IIRC, the Obama campaign was fairly transparent about using available data of potential voters who "liked" or followed on various media to micro-target its message(s) to those potential voters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Definitely looks like the bomber attacked Austin. for being liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.