US Politics: Russian Roulette Republican Style

[Morpheus]

Ethics committee was about to investigate Franks for harassment

https://mobile.twitter.com/jaketapper/status/938916005719535617?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Ethics committee was about to investigate Franks for harassment

https://mobile.twitter.com/jaketapper/status/938916005719535617?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

 

Actually really uplifted that when I started typing 'Trent Franks' into Google it first suggested Trent Reznor.  It wasn't all bad, people.

[Ormond]

More on the Trent Franks resignation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/07/arizona-rep-trent-franks-expected-resign/932829001/

I can't imagine that a "discussion of surrogacy" would lead to this unless the way he discussed it made it clear he wanted to deposit his semen himself in a nonclinical setting. 

[maarsen]

13 minutes ago, Ormond said:

More on the Trent Franks resignation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/07/arizona-rep-trent-franks-expected-resign/932829001/

I can't imagine that a "discussion of surrogacy" would lead to this unless the way he discussed it made it clear he wanted to deposit his semen himself in a nonclinical setting. 

Did he want the surrogate to hold the bottle or did he want to skip that step also?

[Dr. Pepper]

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/07/569291354/rep-trent-franks-to-resign-from-congress-after-asking-staffers-about-surrogacy

Quote

"Given the nature of numerous allegations and reports across America in recent weeks, I want to first make one thing completely clear. I have absolutely never physically intimidated, coerced, or had, or attempted to have, any sexual contact with any member of my congressional staff," Franks said in a statement. "However, I do want to take full and personal responsibility for the ways I have broached a topic that, unbeknownst to me until very recently, made certain individuals uncomfortable. And so, I want to shed light on how those conversations came about."

What sort of idiot would think it's ok to ask your subordinates (or any co-workers for that matter) to be a surrogate?

Still, seems like an unlikely reason to resign.  I imagine there is much more there, especially due to this comment:

Quote

"I would be unable to complete a fair House Ethics investigation before distorted and sensationalized versions of this story would put me, my family, my staff, and my noble colleagues in the House of Representatives through hyperbolized public excoriation."

It's like prepping the public to believe that any stories they hear now must be false.

[OldGimletEye]

But, but, but her emails!!!!!!

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails

Quote

The hand-wringing over the 2016 election continues more than a year later. Fake news. Russia collusion. James Comey. Wisconsin.

But two researchers, David Rothschild and Duncan Watts, took on an in-depth analysis of the mainstream media that will add to the 2016 debate. Their findings, published in the Columbia Journalism Review, focus on the New York Times’s election coverage. Their starkest discovery: “In just six days, the New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.”

Good to know we're concentrating on the important stuff.

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, but, but her emails!!!!!!

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails

Good to know we're concentrating on the important stuff.

The Times' 20+ year habit of relentlessly picking the corn out of Clinton poop is more or less the reason I didn't become a subscriber while all my other good liberal friends subscribed after the election. They really do have an unnatural fixation on them.

[Dr. Pepper]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, but, but her emails!!!!!!

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails

Good to know we're concentrating on the important stuff.

This is very fake news.  I read a tweet from a very bigly honest man that the liberal NYT tell LIES and is totally dishonest and they are also FAILING.  

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This is very fake news.  I read a tweet from a very bigly honest man that the liberal NYT tell LIES and is totally dishonest and they are also FAILING.  

I sorry. Maybe I'm being a little slow here. But, I'm not sure what you mean here.

[DMC]

8 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

You're misrepresenting his position, though. It's not "any" attorney. It's an attorney who has been engaged to represent the campaign. In that case, yes, any campaign members can speak to each other in the presence of such an attorney, and the discussion will be privileged. This is not a particularly complicated iteration of attorney-client privilege. 

I really don't think I'm misrepresenting the position.  "Any" attorney can be described as "engaged to represent the campaign" post-hoc.

7 hours ago, Mudguard said:

No idea why you think that's silly.  Maybe it will help if you generalize the situation.  If an organization hires an attorney to provide legal advice on a situation involving one of its members, that discussion with the attorney is privileged as long as only members of that organization were at the discussion.  For example, if a company hires an attorney to provide legal advice on a sexual harassment complaint or a wrongful termination complaint, the both the employee directly involved in the matter and the CEO or other upper level manager can have a discussion with the attorney and retain privilege.  This seems silly to you?

Yes, in this context it does seem silly because it is.  And it's also wrong.  The whole idea is ridiculous - it's like saying in the beginnings of Watergate John Dean could claim privilege in his conversations with Ehrlichman not only because they are both attorneys, but the justification you're using is that they were both part of CREEP.  If that was the case, Watergate never would have happened and maybe Watchmen would be prescient.  Let alone the myriad of investigations into campaigns before and since Watergate.   

 

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I sorry. Maybe I'm being a little slow here. But, I'm not sure what you mean here.

The NYT can't be writing bad stories about Clinton because NYT loves Clinton and hates Trump.  Bigly.  Trump told us so.

Sorry, it was me doing a shit job being sarcastic.

[OldGimletEye]

On 12/7/2017 at 8:07 PM, Dr. Pepper said:

The NYT can't be writing bad stories about Clinton because NYT loves Clinton and hates Trump.  Bigly.  Trump told us so.

Sorry, it was me doing a shit job being sarcastic.

Ah,got it.

I'd recommend getting more sarcastic about the situation. Because I think besides the NYT, the whole allegedly liberal media screwed up with respect Clinton and Trump. I know of one other study out there that comes to that conclusion (I think it's from the Harvard School Journalism or something).

[Darth Richard II]

Wait, so Sander is racist somehow now? Did i miss a few pages?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Darth Richard II said:

Wait, so Sander is racist somehow now? Did i miss a few pages?

Probably not explicitly; he just doesn't care about dealing with any kind of minority issues particularly much, and dismisses them in favor of what he calls 'normal people' issues.

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The Times' 20+ year habit of relentlessly picking the corn out of Clinton poop is more or less the reason I didn't become a subscriber while all my other good liberal friends subscribed after the election. They really do have an unnatural fixation on them.

One thing you can say though - the Times has kept Maureen Dowd as a dissident voice on the Clintons for over twenty years now.

[Mudguard]

41 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I really don't think I'm misrepresenting the position.  "Any" attorney can be described as "engaged to represent the campaign" post-hoc.

Yes, in this context it does seem silly because it is.  And it's also wrong.  The whole idea is ridiculous - it's like saying in the beginnings of Watergate John Dean could claim privilege in his conversations with Ehrlichman not only because they are both attorneys, but the justification you're using is that they were both part of CREEP.  If that was the case, Watergate never would have happened and maybe Watchmen would be prescient.  Let alone the myriad of investigations into campaigns before and since Watergate.   

 

That's a horrendous analogy.  Did Dean or Ehrlichman even ever claim attorney-client privilege?  Was attorney client privilege even an issue in Watergate?  Not to mention that Dean and Ehrlihcman were active participants in the Watergate scandal and cover up and not acting as attorneys providing legal advice. 

Also, just because someone claims attorney client privilege, it doesn't end the investigation.  You are acting like a simple claim of attorney client privilege is going to prevent a conviction, when all it does is to prevent the disclosure of confidential discussions between a client and attorney.

There are a handful of ways that attorney client privilege can be waived, but there's not enough information yet that shows that this is the case for Jr and Sr.  We need to know the identify of the attorney and in what capacity was that attorney functioning.  If it was one or Trump's real estate attorneys that just happened to be around, then privilege probably doesn't apply.  But if the attorney's job was specifically to deal with campaign issues like the meeting with the Russians, then privilege applies.  Another possibility for waiving privilege is if a third party was present that wasn't a part of the campaign, but there's no evidence yet that such a person was present.

You may not like criminals or people that you think are guilty receiving the protections of attorney client privilege, but this is how it works.  It's not just reserved for the people that you like.

[DanteGabriel]

58 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

One thing you can say though - the Times has kept Maureen Dowd as a dissident voice on the Clintons for over twenty years now.

I think you may be agreeing with me. For a purportedly liberal rag, I'm saying, the Times is prone to making mountains of every Clinton molehill. And we are long past the time when Dowd's high school mean girl act was entertaining or useful.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think you may be agreeing with me. For a purportedly liberal rag, I'm saying, the Times is prone to making mountains of every Clinton molehill. And we are long past the time when Dowd's high school mean girl act was entertaining or useful.

Yes, I was agreeing with you - except while I think that description of Dowd may be an apt generalization, it's ultimately unfair and dismissive to simply think of her insight as a "mean girl."

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

That's a horrendous analogy.  Did Dean or Ehrlichman even ever claim attorney-client privilege?  Was attorney client privilege even an issue in Watergate?  Not to mention that Dean and Ehrlihcman were active participants in the Watergate scandal and cover up and not acting as attorneys providing legal advice. 

I don't see how this makes this a horrendous analogy.  Yes, Dean and Ehrlichman were participants in the scandal and cover up - so too is Trump Jr., plainly, and likely Trump Sr. as well.  The point is based on your standard, either one could claim privilege on discussions with the other because they both passed the bar.  Not to mention Dean was the White House Counsel at the time, which makes such a claim at least as credible as Trump Jr's.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

You are acting like a simple claim of attorney client privilege is going to prevent a conviction, when all it does is to prevent the disclosure of confidential discussions between a client and attorney.

Yes, I am acting like that because the ability of such a widespread prevention of disclosure would stop most investigative inquiries into misconduct in its tracts.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

If it was one or Trump's real estate attorneys that just happened to be around, then privilege probably doesn't apply.  But if the attorney's job was specifically to deal with campaign issues like the meeting with the Russians, then privilege applies. 

This is a technicality that could and would easily be manipulated by all politicians.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

You may not like criminals or people that you think are guilty receiving the protections of attorney client privilege, but this is how it works.  It's not just reserved for the people that you like.

I like it just fine because I know it cannot be abused to the extent your interpretation of the privilege would allow any officeholder, or campaign operative for that matter.

[ThinkerX]

Those behind Trumps decision to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.  A collection of mega-donors, lobbyists, and (Christian) religious fanatics. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-billionaires-lobbyists-and-christian-extremists-behind-trump’s-jerusalem-move/ar-BBGmRPG?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

To me, next logical step for this alliance is to get a major middle eastern war going, with direct US military involvement. Something that can be hawked as a 'Crusade against Islamic demons' and tied directly into the various endtimes prophecies.  War, after all, is a real moneymaker for some. 

 

Imagine the likes of say, Fox News, continually broadcasting the 'need for all true Christians' to support this war, and stopping just short of advocating lynch mobs for those who say the war would be a waste.