Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah I don't think I have a strong opinion on McCabe's firing. The push to fire him doesn't appear to be political, it seems to come completely from within OPR and I'm inclined to believe them absent some compelling evidence otherwise. I did read the report they released but, to be frank, I found the whole timeline between what he said compared with Comey to be eye-glazing and confusing. My takeaway was they found Comey to be truthful as a baseline. They can't both be lying.

Firing him a day before he could retire seems a bit... extreme. I can't imagine that happening under the previous administrations, I think he would have been quietly shown the exit.

OTOH I also do see the value in a message job when they want to reinforce how important candor is to the DOJ and FBI.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-study-liars-ive-never-seen-one-like-president-trump/2017/12/07/4e529efe-da3f-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c0d57693d6d

An interesting piece of light research on the rate at which Trump lies and the kind of lies he tells, compared to the general population.

Unfortunately it's blocking non-subscribers on that one.

The TL/DR is that Trump is a prodigious liar. He lies at a much higher rate than normal liars who lie a lot.

Secondly, an extraordinary number of his lies are intended to harm and damage other people, which is very unusual. Most people tell lies to benefit themselves or other people.

This study is based only on the lies Trump tells in public. If assumed that he also tells lies in private, the guy is a bizarre outlier.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If assumed that he also tells lies in private, the guy is a bizarre outlier.

That was the impression I got meeting him. and I'm a fairly odd person myself. You've herd about people who live in their own little worlds? This is it.

sebster wrote:This isn't evidence, of course. But the idea not necessarily of blackmail but at the very least of some kind of undisclosed tie between the two men, maybe financial, seems to me to best suit the behaviour we've observed.

Trump's a bully, a grifter, and he thinks he's smarter than he actually is. In his non-presidential life he had lawyers to save him from his own stupidity but the same doesn't work now. My guess is that whatever connection there is between them is build on the foundation of Trump having thought of some arrangement being profitable for him in some way and now being way over his head. It's not treason, there probably not even need for blackmail. It's just him floundering because the rules are different now and he doesn't have lawyers who can work some magic to get him out of the mess. And as a president he doesn't have multiple compartmentalised companies (or countries in this case) that can be cut loose if they start to sink. His slimy MO just doesn't work on the scale of a whole country, no matter how much he brags about it.

Not only did Trump go against his own National Security team and cancel plans for further sanctions against Russia, Trump's team went and told the Russian embassy of this straight away. Meanwhile they didn't even think to tell Nikki Haley, leading to her making a public statement of upcoming sanctions against Russia. In the embaressment afterwards the Whitehouse tried to throw Haley under the bus, new economic advisor and former coke addict Larry Kudlow said Haley got ahead of the curve and there was some confusion. Haley handled it very well, 'with all due respect I don't get confused'.

While all that drama and mess was kind of fun, the reality remained that Trump's national security team was working in unison towards new sanctions, until Trump came over the top and said there would be no sanctions, and made sure to tell Russia as soon as possible. There really isn't a lot of doubt left about what Trump is doing. We still don't know why Trump is doing it, but the actions speak for themselves.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-study-liars-ive-never-seen-one-like-president-trump/2017/12/07/4e529efe-da3f-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c0d57693d6d

An interesting piece of light research on the rate at which Trump lies and the kind of lies he tells, compared to the general population.

That was excellent, thanks for the link.

"Just 0.8 percent of the lies told by the college students and 2.4 percent of the lies told by the community members were mean-spirited."
"The most stunning way Trump’s lies differed from our participants’, though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump’s lies were hurtful or disparaging."

That's a really interesting observation. Trump not only lies far more often than normal, he is wildly different in the kinds of lies he tells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
What is interesting to me is that none of these people currently hold political office, and the only one in any current position of authority (Botente) was put there by Trump's administration.

Meanwhile Scott Pruitt is in office, and has racked up some of the most extraordinarily waste you will ever see from a government officer. The dude had a sound proof booth installed in his house, he broke the law by failing to tell Congress he was doing it. The guy claimed he needed to travel first class and use charter flights to avoid threats from the public - when asked to demonstrate the threats Pruitt was only able to mention one 30 second instance in an airport lounge that wasn't even heated. He tried to get a driver to put on the sirens to travel through a red light because he was late for dinner - the man leading the convoy who refused was later sacked.

About 20 Republicans have made some noise about Pruitt stepping down, or being fired. But Trump loves Pruitt, so Republicans just meekly accept Pruitt's continued absues of his office.

But, as you note, Republicans in the House are happy to push for criminal investigations in to Comey, McCabe etc.

I've been saying for some years now that the Republican party we see today simply lacks any basic values of governance or even just regular decency. Republicans scoffed at this, and moderates said I was being a bit extreme. But look at what these people do in office. Republicans have entirely abandoned the standards of government, they are directed by nothing but political expedience.

And tax cuts, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Meh, they're just House reps, so this is just the usual attempt at attention whoring. Is one of them hoping to get their name known so they can run for Senate or something?

In this political environment most Republicans are just trying to hold the office they've already got. More likely they're trying to prove their Trumpian credentials to the Trump wing of the base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No... McCabe was under oath when the FBI's own IG interviewed and flat out lied. That *is* perjury. Really no different than what got Flynn.

Sort of. I agree McCabe 'lacked candor' when questioned under oath, where 'lacked candor' is just the IG expression for 'lied'. I'm no lawyer but it looks like they'd have all the pieces they needed for a perjury case if they wanted to bring on forward.

But the comparison to Flynn is wildly off. Flynn pled down to lying to the FBI, with other, much more serious charges being waived in exchange for Flynn agreeing to work with the FBI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah I don't think I have a strong opinion on McCabe's firing. The push to fire him doesn't appear to be political, it seems to come completely from within OPR and I'm inclined to believe them absent some compelling evidence otherwise. I did read the report they released but, to be frank, I found the whole timeline between what he said compared with Comey to be eye-glazing and confusing. My takeaway was they found Comey to be truthful as a baseline. They can't both be lying.

Firing him a day before he could retire seems a bit... extreme. I can't imagine that happening under the previous administrations, I think he would have been quietly shown the exit.

I agree entirely, the IG report was non-partisan, I believe it was started before Trump won. It's findings seemed entirely solid. And while McCabe was well out of line in his lies, that would normally be weighed against a life of excellent service, resulting in McCabe being forced out, but with benefits. But of course Trump's engagement in the case is nothing to do with the lie or McCabe's career, it is all about McCabe being part of the FBI leadership which has led an investigation in to him and his connections to Russia. So Trump pushes first for McCabe to lose his benefits, and now threatens legal action.

The great irony is that McCabe was trying to keep his investigation of the Clinton Foundation still going. Comey was concerned the investigation's actions were being noticed and it was tipping the public in to the existence of the investigation, that Comey was worried about an FBI investigation impacting an election is a whole other irony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:
Trump's a bully, a grifter, and he thinks he's smarter than he actually is. In his non-presidential life he had lawyers to save him from his own stupidity but the same doesn't work now.

It wasn't just that Trump had a lot of lawyers, there was also really no-one gunning for Trump in a serious way. Looking at past law breaking by Trump, authorities would typically look to secure a plea if they decided it was worth the hassle of legal action at all. That wasn't just how Trump was treated, it's how a lot of rich and connected people are treated, unfortunately. Having the resources to get lawyers to drag things out in court was just icing on top of the cake.

But Trump's done two things that have shifted the game. By entering politics Trump has caused fully one half of politics to actually start gunning for his head, who actively push for investigation and who won't settle for plea deals. The second, and bigger change is the nature of Trump's crimes, this isn't breaching water use on a golf course or grifting some suckers out of a tuition fee, this is making deals with foreign governments to subvert elections. This is serious stuff that law enforcement has to take seriously.

In that new game, Trump's much hyped lawyers are having to fight real battles against an enemy that is doing everything it can to win. We're learning, among other things, that Trump's lawyers are actually pretty crap.

My guess is that whatever connection there is between them is build on the foundation of Trump having thought of some arrangement being profitable for him in some way and now being way over his head. It's not treason, there probably not even need for blackmail. It's just him floundering because the rules are different now and he doesn't have lawyers who can work some magic to get him out of the mess. And as a president he doesn't have multiple compartmentalised companies (or countries in this case) that can be cut loose if they start to sink. His slimy MO just doesn't work on the scale of a whole country, no matter how much he brags about it.

Yeah, whatever arrangement was put in place, it's now clear Trump is in way over his head, and unlike other deals gone bad he can't just cut and run from this.

That said, Trump has gotten himself out of big holes before. As idiotic as he was getting himself sunk in his casino disaster, his ability to extricate himself from that mess was quite impressive. There's a phrase 'cunning as a gak rat'. It probably won't be enough, but I'd be surprised if Trump doesn't show some pretty clever strategies through this.

The Scooter Libby thing was pretty clever, for instance. Utterly immoral, of course, but clever.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So what I'm understanding is:
-Take the Democrat & Republican leadership to make two American Football teams
-Have them face off in the Super Bowl
-???
-Russia can't hack us!

I would say take them all and put them into a battle royal, but I am afraid Trump would likely win,...being the only head of state to be UNDEFEATED at Wrestlemania.

just looked up a video of it, due to disbelief, honestly I'm having trouble deciding if this make me more ashamed or proud to be an american...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Exactly. Don't gotta think about things when the deep state is behind everything.

...Mr. Hannity?

Remember boys and girls, if you want to enjoy client/attorney privilege - don't use your lawyer as your bag man!

The privilege goes away as soon as the lawyer himself is colluding.

Having him serve as your covert messenger service is not a 'stay out of jail free' card.

The Auld Grump

Trump is turning out to be my favorite president ever.

Eh? Care to elaborate?

In other news...

Oh my!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/justice-mccabe-criminal-referral/index.html

How good a lawyer actually is Cohen?

I've read a couple of in-depth articles about Trump which included stuff on Cohen. The impression I got is that Cohen is more of a legally qualified hard-arse go-between and bag-man than a "real" lawyer who really does "legal stuff".

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Remember boys and girls, if you want to enjoy client/attorney privilege - don't use your lawyer as your bag man!

The privilege goes away as soon as the lawyer himself is colluding.

Having him serve as your covert messenger service is not a 'stay out of jail free' card.

The Auld Grump

Of course it is, my lawyer said so! And I only hire the best people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How good a lawyer actually is Cohen?

I've read a couple of in-depth articles about Trump which included stuff on Cohen. The impression I got is that Cohen is more of a legally qualified hard-arse go-between and bag-man than a "real" lawyer who really does "legal stuff".

That's not a nice thing to say and would probably hurt his feelings if he were to read it.

 whembly wrote:


Oh my!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/justice-mccabe-criminal-referral/index.html

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

More interesting may be to see if Trump's actions/tweeting blow any case made against him

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How good a lawyer actually is Cohen?

I've read a couple of in-depth articles about Trump which included stuff on Cohen. The impression I got is that Cohen is more of a legally qualified hard-arse go-between and bag-man than a "real" lawyer who really does "legal stuff".

That's what his "expertise" seems to be from what I've gathered.

KTG17 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How good a lawyer actually is Cohen?

I've read a couple of in-depth articles about Trump which included stuff on Cohen. The impression I got is that Cohen is more of a legally qualified hard-arse go-between and bag-man than a "real" lawyer who really does "legal stuff".

That's not a nice thing to say and would probably hurt his feelings if he were to read it.

And why does it being mean make it untrue? Also, welcome to Dakka where some level of meanness if tolerated, especially if it's true.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Oh my!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/justice-mccabe-criminal-referral/index.html

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

More interesting may be to see if Trump's actions/tweeting blow any case made against him

Too late... a judge would throw the case out on the basis of Trump's tweet as being the POTUS tainting* the judicial process.

*trying to legitimately use "taint" every day!

Trumps tweeting taint is not the visual I needed, but I'll allow it

That said, the whole McCabe thing is...odd. Normally for something like this they'd sweep ot under the rug and just allow him to retire, that they're pursuing it as far as they are is...unusual. Can't say I'd be terribly sympathetic if he was dumb enough to forget the rules of his own game and got caught perjuring himself, but still, not usually the kind of thing that gets referred for prosecution and fired 2 days from retirement and ranted about by the President typically.

Oh boy the swamp just keeps getting swampier

The Senate on Thursday narrowly confirmed Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), a former Navy pilot with no scientific credentials and who doesn’t believe humans are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis, to lead NASA.

Bridenstine will become the first elected official to hold the NASA administrator job. He joins a Cabinet already loaded with people who question the near-universal scientific consensus that climate change is real and that human activity is the primary cause.

The final vote ― which was 50-49 along party lines ― came one day after the Senate narrowly advanced Bridenstine’s nomination, thanks to an about-face from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and a key vote from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Rubio, who in September told Politico that he worried about Bridenstine’s nomination “could be devastating for the space program,” said in a statement Wednesday that he decided to support the nominee in order to avoid “a gaping leadership void” at NASA.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-confirms-climate-change-denier-184241292.html


Also, in before some of our more...interesting posters come to complain about climate change being a hoax or not as bad as we say it is

 Ustrello wrote:

Also, in before some of our more...interesting posters come to complain about climate change being a hoax or not as bad as we say it is

Uh-oh, I see a warning in your future.

It's all FAKE NEWS. What, are we supposed to believe some 'scientists' about the weather? Democratic hacks! The sooner the polar caps melt, if they melt at all, the sooner we'll be able to drill for oil.

Who wants a bunch of ice anyway?

I guess if you can’t pass any actual laws to roll back any regulations you don’t like, even when controlling congress and the White House, then appointing people who hate the agency they will head and what they regulate is the next best thing.

Jane Fonda for Secretary of Defense!

 d-usa wrote:
I guess if you can’t pass any actual laws to roll back any regulations you don’t like, even when controlling congress and the White House, then appointing people who hate the agency they will head and what they regulate is the next best thing.

Jane Fonda for Secretary of Defense!

Honestly that proves my point that the republican party isn't a cohesive party anymore just a bunch of squabbling right wingers who were able to hold it together for the past 8 years because of Obama

Oh lordy...

AP obtains memos drafted by former FBI Director James Comey on interactions with President Donald Trump
https://apnews.com/


That's all there is for now, but this is likely to get...interesting. In all kinds of ways.

Edit: AP story with link to the memos themselves at the bottom
https://apnews.com/e29d5563fc0c45caa4faa6b3749405a6/Comey-memo:-Trump-complained-about-Flynn's-'judgment-issues'

 d-usa wrote:
I guess if you can’t pass any actual laws to roll back any regulations you don’t like, even when controlling congress and the White House, then appointing people who hate the agency they will head and what they regulate is the next best thing.

Jane Fonda for Secretary of Defense!

Why would you wish that on me?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How good a lawyer actually is Cohen?

I've read a couple of in-depth articles about Trump which included stuff on Cohen. The impression I got is that Cohen is more of a legally qualified hard-arse go-between and bag-man than a "real" lawyer who really does "legal stuff".

My legal knowledge is minimal, and my sources for this are entirely left wing*, but Cohen graduated from Thomas Cooley, the law school you attend when absolutely no other law school will take you. He graduated with a 2.0 GPA. So he's got mediocre grades from the worst law school in it's state.

However, the guy isn't just a bagman for Trump. He made himself a very tidy fortune long before he met Trump, he not only owned his own law practice, he also built a very tidy asset base in property and taxi plates. He actually only came in to Trump's circle when he bought a bunch of apartments in one of Trump's buildings, he was already a self-made man. How much of Cohen's business and investment was clean is a whole other question, a lot of his business associates have already done time or been investigated, and his own dealings hint at some very shady stuff. But in terms of just being a bagman for Trump, it's actually a bit more complicated than that.




*because the right wing is not talking about Cohen at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
*trying to legitimately use "taint" every day!

I wouldn't last a single day on the FBI 'taint team', before they kicked me off for snickering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, the whole McCabe thing is...odd. Normally for something like this they'd sweep ot under the rug and just allow him to retire, that they're pursuing it as far as they are is...unusual. Can't say I'd be terribly sympathetic if he was dumb enough to forget the rules of his own game and got caught perjuring himself, but still, not usually the kind of thing that gets referred for prosecution and fired 2 days from retirement and ranted about by the President typically.

That's how it often works in countries where political enemies are routinely prosecuted through government control of the judiciary. It is actually pretty rare for there to be no crime at all. We all think of the show trials of Soviet Russia but those were an exception in their level of fiction. Rather most of the time there's some kind of crime, and the actual injustice is blowing that crime way out of proportion, ignoring all mitigating circumstances and previous good standing and service to the country, and pursuing that minor crime to the fullest extent possible. So an offense that would generally be deemed too insignificant to warrant prosecution, or maybe produce a fine or suspended sentence is instead given long jail sentences.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Oh my!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/justice-mccabe-criminal-referral/index.html

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

More interesting may be to see if Trump's actions/tweeting blow any case made against him

Too late... a judge would throw the case out on the basis of Trump's tweet as being the POTUS tainting* the judicial process.

*trying to legitimately use "taint" every day!

Honestly, it is pretty easy if you let the novelty hick accent slip in. "T'ain't ever gon give you up, t'ain't ever gon let y'all down."

I feel like that is a pretty legitimate use.

 d-usa wrote:
I guess if you can’t pass any actual laws to roll back any regulations you don’t like, even when controlling congress and the White House, then appointing people who hate the agency they will head and what they regulate is the next best thing.

Yep, early on it looked like Trump was just hiring people he knew to wherever he could fit them in, at least to me that's what it looked like. Now its becoming clear that a lack of qualifications and actual hostility to even understanding their office is actually a primary recruiting requirement.

Okay... now I'm confused...

We don't have all the memos that Comey leaked... because the ones published today shouldn't have warranted a special counsel:
sauce.

...also of note, Comey's writing style is very weird... but, its in a "stream of conscious" style.

EDIT: “I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.” Ooooooohkay then.

Has everyone been following the speculation about whether Cohen will flip on Trump? There's a bunch of people from in and around Trump's circle arguing both sides, and honestly its all just a bunch of talk at this point, no-one really knows what Cohen will do. But there's one very interesting thing - the debate is built entirely around Cohen's character and the pressure Mueller will be able to bring, none of the conversation is about whether there is anything to flip over. That Cohen has done stuff that could land him in federal prison is just assumed, and the idea that he could add valuable testimony to prosecutions of Trump crimes is similarly assumed.

What's most amazing about this is that Michael Avenatti first brought up that conversation as a lawyer's trick. Well before the FBI raid, when it was just campaign finance breaches being talked about, Avenatti mentioned Cohen flipping. He mentioned it just as a ploy, to get people talking past the sale, as the saying goes, tp get them to assume Cohen and Trump guilt, by focusing on a question where those things are already assumed. But now Trump's own lawyers have stumbled in to doing the same thing.

It's amazing how dumb these guys are. What's less amazing is that they all know Cohen and Trump have done a whole lot of illegal stuff.

 whembly wrote:
We don't have all the memos that Comey leaked... because the ones published today shouldn't have warranted a special counsel:

False framing. The memos were not why the special counsel was created. The special counsel was created because Trump just fired the FBI director while that director was investigating the conduct of Trump's campaign and building legal cases against some of its senior staff. Obviously you can't entrust that investigation to the guy Trump then appoints to the role.

I mean, just consider, from a completely hypothetical position, that Trump is an honest and forthright man who genuinely wants a clean investigation so that any wrongdoing can be punished and all honorable men would be fully vindicated. I know it's a stretch but go with me on this. In that situation, Trump would be in an impossible position, any appointment he made to head the FBI would be seen as completely compromised, and any findings would be considered tainted.

 sebster wrote:
Has everyone been following the speculation about whether Cohen will flip on Trump? There's a bunch of people from in and around Trump's circle arguing both sides, and honestly its all just a bunch of talk at this point, no-one really knows what Cohen will do. But there's one very interesting thing - the debate is built entirely around Cohen's character and the pressure Mueller will be able to bring, none of the conversation is about whether there is anything to flip over. That Cohen has done stuff that could land him in federal prison is just assumed, and the idea that he could add valuable testimony to prosecutions of Trump crimes is similarly assumed.

What's most amazing about this is that Michael Avenatti first brought up that conversation as a lawyer's trick. Well before the FBI raid, when it was just campaign finance breaches being talked about, Avenatti mentioned Cohen flipping. He mentioned it just as a ploy, to get people talking past the sale, as the saying goes, tp get them to assume Cohen and Trump guilt, by focusing on a question where those things are already assumed. But now Trump's own lawyers have stumbled in to doing the same thing.

It's amazing how dumb these guys are. What's less amazing is that they all know Cohen and Trump have done a whole lot of illegal stuff.

I think since Cohen is supposedly facing 30 years in prison, and considering his age, I don't think he's willing to give up the rest of his life for trump, and will jump at any chance for a deal once he's thought it over.

The single most important thing I have learned today is that Robert Mueller's middle name is Swan.

Also, Trump is currently on twitter accusing Comey of leaking the memos. It's crap. These memos were pursued by Congress, when DoJ didn't comply Nunes, Gowdy & the rest of the superfriends threatened to indict Wray and Rosenstein if they didn't get them. DoJ handed over the memos, and within an hour of doing so they leaked to the press.

 Wolfblade wrote:
I think since Cohen is supposedly facing 30 years in prison, and considering his age, I don't think he's willing to give up the rest of his life for trump, and will jump at any chance for a deal once he's thought it over.

Possibly. But that answer only makes sense if we assume Cohen has committed crimes and there will be stuff to give up on Trump because Trump has also committed crimes. Trump's team isn't supposed to be admitting that, but they've done so implicitly by talking about whether Cohen will flip.

That's my point. Trump's team have already conceded, by default, that crimes have been committed.

This has been the craziest reality show Ive ever watched.

Is there any news on the peace talks for Korea? Other than them talking about denuclearization and actually talking about signing a peace treaty. Seems crazy, since I thought both of those things were how the North survived so long?