Jump to content

wildcat09

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by wildcat09

  1. 3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    That's actually an interesting question.  I don't know that they can do nothing.  The Constitution says that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try Impeachments," but I don't know if that leaves them the option of not trying an impeachment.

    Irrespective, I think it's politically untenable not to have a trial and take a vote.  And that would be one very uncomfortable vote.

    A few years ago, most if not all of us would have thought similarly about a Supreme Court nominee.

    • Like 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I'm not saying there was no effect, but I am saying that we don't have a good measure of how much Hillary had self-fucked her own campaign, nor how much meddling might have occurred in certain states.

    I am taking issue with the absolute nature of the statement.

    Then consider my statement amended to remove "probably was more responsible than..." and replace it with "may have been as responsible as...." I don't think it particularly impacts the point I was trying to make. Comey had a substantial causal impact on Trump's election because he was more concerned with maintaining the appearance of integrity (which in itself is certainly not an unreasonable concern for the head of the FBI) than he was with actually acting with integrity. There are additional reasonable complaints that he was unduly concerned specifically with preempting public attacks from Republicans in Congress and conservative media critics, while not really giving a shit what Democrats or liberals would say. 

    I don't think he's a bad person, but it's still annoying that he's going to come out of this looking better than he should because he's done a great job through his career of maintaining the appearance of integrity, which is what led him to fuck everything up in the first place. He should publicly own up to the impact his actions had. Perhaps his book will do that, but I doubt it.

    • Like 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Yeah, and there are a long list of people who think the election was fucked long before that action.  So no, you have no legitimate basis for your statement.  It's an opinion.  In my opinion, it's likely wrong.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

    Quote

    The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

    But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

     

    • Like 1
  4. I've always felt this had the best take on Comey: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/05/villains-careerists-and-patriots.html

    The TLDR is:

    Quote

    How does someone who is not widely perceived as a gadfly or an asshole develop a reputation for being a person of great principle and integrity? Essentially by curating his reputation. As numerous commentators have noted, that's more or less what Comey has done--leaning very hard on the tale of the hospital visit.

    To be clear, I'm not arguing that Comey did not act honorably and with integrity back in 2004, when he blocked the effort of Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card to reauthorize an illegal surveillance program. He acted honorably. What I am saying is that Comey seems like the sort of person who pays a great deal of attention to his own reputation. And that accounts for his worst sin: Because he didn't want to look like he had acted unfairly to influence the election by sitting on the Anthony Weiner material, he in fact unfairly influenced the election. The cultivation of the appearance of integrity can sometimes be inconsistent with actually acting with integrity.

     

  5. It is annoying that Comey will probably come out of this thing looking good, when he is probably more responsible than any other individual in America for Trump's election. It wasn't his intention, and I think he was trying to do what he saw as the closest-to-right thing in a bad situation, but he's going to publicly skate in the court of public opinion and he shouldn't.

    • Like 2
  6. 3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

     


    It would help if the investigation would actually produce something. The longer it goes on with nothing really happening the less people care. There’s a saying in sales, “Time kills deals.” The longer nothing happens then the more people think there’s nothing there and that nothing will happen.

    Not everyone has the time or inclination to study this stuff on a daily basis.

    That’s why I think that if a) the economy is still humming and b) the investigation is still dragging on, Trump will get elected for a second term.

     

    It's very hard to take shit like this as anything other than disingenuous concern trolling. 

  7. Just now, F250 said:

    I consider Nixon's actions in Vietnam to be treasonous and in some ways worse than anything Trump is being accused of doing.

     

    Agreed. He deliberately tanked the peace talks in 68. Tens of thousands of Americans may not have had to die if it wasn’t for his interference.

    • Like 3
  8. 3 minutes ago, TornACL said:

    I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

     

     

    Yeah, all of Don Jr.'s relevant public statements are wholly consistent with this. I'm sure they really believed they were just doing the same shit all politicians do. But, like LL said, even if they're all Fredos the result is the same.

  9. It really is hilarious that the entire Trump family seems to genuinely believe that they're totally protected so long as an attorney is in the room or on the phone whenever they're planning crime stuff. It was awhile ago now, but that was Don Jr.'s excuse during his congressional testimony for not talking about their AF1 session planning the response after the Trump Tower meeting story broke.

  10. 3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

    Also, keep in mind that it's only conversations within the attorney client relationship that are inadmissible.  Just because Cohen has an "Esq." next to his name doesn't mean that any conversation with him is protected.  For instance, if Cohen was acting in a pure business capacity, that wouldn't be protected by any privilege.  Best example I can think of off hand for this is with respect to Stormy Daniels.  Both Trump and Cohen have said Trump didn't know about the payoff.  If that's true, Cohen wasn't acting as Trump's lawyer.  Nothing about that would be privileged.

    Cohen also has a history of acting in more of a business capacity for the Trump Organization as well. If he's in Moscow leading negotiations on a Trump Tower deal, rather than providing legal counsel to someone else who is responsible for handling negotiations, then he isn't acting as a lawyer either.

  11. 1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Good stuff.  So what kind of conversation might pierce the attorney-client privilege and lead to admissible evidence?  "Don, I think you'll be immune to prosecution if you have Jared sign off on this deal?"

    (I'm winging it here.  Looking for clarity.)

    Here's a pretty good Lawfare explainer: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-attorney-client-privilege-and-crime-fraud-exception

    Quote

    That question brings us to something known as the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. It is, if you will, an exception to an exception that allows the goverment to read, review, compel production of and compel testimony of an attorney and his or her records. It arises if, and only if, the client uses the attorney’s services to commit a crime. (So, to be clear, it does not apply retrospectively, as when I tell you about a crime I have already committed.) An example of this—an easy one—would be if I use an attorney to help me draft an affidavit that I am going to submit to a court, and the affidavit is false. I have used the attorney’s help to commit a crime. The lawyer may not (indeed usually does not—since, notwithstanding the public derision, most attorneys would not knowingly assist a client in committing a crime) know that the crime is afoot—he may be completely ignorant. But if the government can show a court that there is a basis for thinking that the crime has occurred (here, in my example, that the affidavit is a lie) then the attorney can be and will be required to testify as to the nature of his interaction with the client. “What did the client tell you?” is a completely impermissible question generally—but it is a lawful question when there is reason to think that the answer is “X happened,” and the lawyer took that answer and put it in an affidavit that was submitted to a court and it turns out that the statement that “X happened” is a bald-faced lie.

    You can readily imagine other examples of when and how a lawyer’s services might be used to commit a crime. The lawyer helps set up a shell corporation (perfectly legal generally) and the corporation is used to foster a Ponzi scheme. The lawyer is asked about how to secure insurance, but the insurance is then used to collect on an insurance fraud. And so on. In other words, the crime-fraud exception applies when an attorney’s advice is used to futher the crime. Or, as the Supreme Court put it in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933), “A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told.”

     

  12. 15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    That's not how any of this works.

    In order to get a warrant, you need to demonstrate to a judge that you have probable cause to believe that the search will reveal admissible evidence of a crime.  That requires an evidentiary showing sufficient to convince a judge that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

    The burden to get a warrant to search an attorney's files is much higher.  You need to have some specific indication that the attorney's files will contain non-privileged documents that evidence a crime.  Mere probable cause isn't going to cut it.

    Once the search is carried out, the investigators cannot see any privileged material--hence the need for taint team to be kept completely separate from the investigatory team.  If the investigatory team does see any privileged material, than not only that material but any other evidence that comes out of the investigation following up on the leads provided by that privileged material will be inadmissible.  And the question of admissibility is determined by a judge (and reviewed by a court of appeals).

    So no--federal investigators can't just go on a fishing expedition through privileged materials.  That's wrong on three levels.  First, they can't go on a fishing expedition; they have to get pre-approval from a judge who is going to prevent fishing expeditions.  Second, they can't review privileged material.  Third, if they do review privileged material, a judge will exclude not only the privileged material, but anything that results from their review, which would jeopardize the entire prosecution.

    So your concern of a Mueller run amok is really, really unfounded.

    Jhawk was also "concerned" that Rod Rosenstein was part of a long-game Deep State conspiracy against Trump because he signed off on an application to extend FISA surveillance of Carter Page.

  13. 30 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

    I appreciate the response.

    So where we sit is that the DA or taint team or whatever is going to hit control "F" on the inbox and files of Cohen and search "Russia" and anything they find in there that might incriminate anyone will be released.  If that is the case then there doesn't even need to be courts anymore.  Just get the tapes of the convos between client and attorney and either burn the witches or let them go.  No need for dog and pony shows.

    I really don't understand how this can happen in our system.  IF YOU ASSUME that Mueller is trying to nab trump, isn't this the equivilent of Mueller saying "I couldn't find anything on you so let's just look at your communication with your attorney and see if you have talked at all about my investigation or evidence I might have missed or even maybe a recorded conversation where you say "yeah we had the help with russia, but Mueller will never find out how."  Under the assumption that mueller's job is to chop off the head of the dragon then it's hard to see how this is anything but "get trump at all costs" move.

    It is impossible that you are this stupid.

  14. 4 hours ago, Jhawk said:

    Thanks for the info.

    The reason I even brought this up is because we have talked about how the saying of “if you want an indictment then give me a grand jury.”  Meaning that once special counsel gets involved he can almost direct traffic as he wants. I’ve got 2 scenarios in my head. 

    1. Mueller has nothing on trump just as he stated a week ago. He is now looking to appease the powers that be and he direct traffic to trumps lawyer. Given the proof we have that the fbi and investigators have leaked various intelligence/evidence the golden ticket isn’t about being able to prosecute trump but to leak the information between him and his attorney, maybe even through wiki to protect the investigation. This kills trump in the public eye where this trial will most likely take place. 

    2. Mueller does and always has had something on trump and his comments last week were bait to try and get trump to panic in a fit of confidence. This raid was going to happen unless trump willingly handed over privileged docs. Trump might not be screwed for anything Russia/collusion related but everyone around him, or maybe even him, goes down for something completely unrelated to anything with politics. Which if he has done illegal activities then he probably should go down. 

    Negged for this bullshit lie

  15. On 4/5/2018 at 8:28 PM, DixonHur said:

    Do you know what the phrase "more effective" means?  What I did say is the I think congress should stick to Section 8 of Article 1 when making laws.  And low and behold, there's a duty outlined in there that could have been used against the slave states...

    " To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes "

    Here's a crazy idea...how about ban the interstate commerce and exportation of slave made goods.  Think that would have gotten their attention?

    So let me get this right, Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bad because you think there were preferable alternatives of stopping discrimination against minorities. But on the issue of slavery, you think it would have been good for Congress to have banned it by using its authority under the commerce clause...

    You do know that the commerce clause is the primary constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

    This is like that guy a few years back that argued that a constitutional amendment (i think he was talking about the 19th?) was unconstitutional.

  16. Just now, retread said:

    With guys like W or Obama, you could go several days or even weeks without knowing what the President was up to. You just assumed he was doing his job.

    That's literally the only thing we know Trump is never doing.

  17. 11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    If a worldview cannot deal with answering simple questions, of what use is it?

    I think the overwhelming majority of people forget to ask themselves the bolded part regarding their own beliefs, but the worst are certainly those who are the most ideological. The entire point of having a specific ideology/belief/view/whathaveyou of how people should generally act or how society should work is that we think that it is the best means to some greater good. They then immediately forget about that greater good forever once they've determined that their ideology or view is the best.

    The sabbath was made for man, as they say, not the other way around. The moment a person's political ideology has them supporting segregation, if they're not actually racist they should probably fucking ask themselves what good is their ideology if it has them supporting segregation, rather than get upset that people think they're racist.

  18. 2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    - Building and maintaining infrastructure
    - National and international defense
    - National, state, and local parks
    - Universal access to sanitation and water
    - Electronic and communication infrastructure
    - Ensuring free and fair elections
    - Maintenance of peaceful social order

    The reality is that America, on the whole, runs very well. Obviously there are major problems, but there are many things the government does extremely well that the private sector would have zero incentive to involve itself in (care of mentally ill/poor veterans, ensuring utilities to rural citizens, feeding starving children).

    And anyway, how the hell is that a response to what I said? Did you even understand it?

    The infrastructure points alone could be analyzed at greater length for literally thousands of pages. From air traffic and safety to building the Hoover Dam, the federal government has built and maintained infrastructure that has made literally hundreds of trillions of dollars (if not more) in economic activity possible. That's not even getting into any of the other points you enumerated, nor the dozens if not hundreds that you didn't.

    When people say there's nothing the government does well, what they're really saying is that they've got absolutely no idea what the government does.

  19. 2 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

     


    Did some refreshing on the IRS “scandal” which is emblematic of the the disfunction in our democracy.

    Really it started with the Citizens United ruling and democrats like Chuck Schumer complaining about abuse by political groups abusing 501c4 status following the ruling. IRS targeted tea party groups, as they would if a bunch of socialist blue dogs started to pop up. But FOX News jumped on it and made it the scandal of the century. Official Investigations didnt turn up anything, years go by and the Trump administration settles. Now, FOX reports their conclusions are verified.

    Keep in mind the confusion of the CU decision has opened the floodgates from individuals, factions and nations around the world to influence our elections. And IRS staff in the crosshairs make these types of investigations unattractive.

     

    The entire IRS "scandal" was a manufactured campaign to force the IRS to permit fraud by conservative political groups.

×
×
  • Create New...