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.
In a shocking admission Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said Rick Gates may not testify in the trial of his former business partner Paul Manafort.
Mr. Gates, who oversaw some of the financial dealings of Mr. Manafort’s consulting business, was expected to be a key witness for the government.
But prosecutor Uzo Asonye said jurors may not hear from Mr. Gates after all.
“He may testify, he may not,” Mr. Asonye told Judge T.S. Ellis III.
The revelation sent journalists and others out of the courtroom to report the disclosure.
“That’s news to me and about 25 others who scurried out of here like rats on a sinking ship,” Judge Ellis shot back.
Mr. Asonye attempted to backtrack, telling Judge Ellis that the evidence presented will determine if Mr. Gates‘ testifies.
That drew a sharp rebuke from Judge Ellis.
“You know who you are going to call,” He said. “If you are going to call him then this is a waste of time.”
The exchange occurred during the testimony of FBI agent Mathew Mikuska, who raided Mr. Manafort’s Alexandria, Virginia condo last year.
While discussing some of the financial records seized during the raid, Mr. Mikuska began describing a document put together by Mr. Gates.
Judge Ellis interrupted the testing to say the agent’s testimony is unnecessary because Mr. Gates will testify.
On Tuesday, Mr. Manafort’s attorneys accused Mr. Gates of being the mastermind behind the crimes lodged against their client.
Man looks like things are going... weird already.
LOL at the judge commenting on the reporters leaving the court room...
feeder wrote: The GOP has a habit of circling the wagons in the face of any kind of accusation. Given how quickly they have acted on this, it's unlikely this story doesn't have legs.
Revenge porn or sharing of nudes without consent is one of the scummiest things a guy can do.
I don't disagree with that. Though - do you agree that reserving judgement is a much better practice than assuming guilt? I sure am glad our legal system works that way.
Indeed, and I expect that the police investigation will demonstrate that this guy shared those personal pics from his smart phone. It's pretty easy for investigators to determine this kind of thing.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Hrm, the EC wasnt really so much about balancing large/small states, rather the point was that they didnt trust direct democracy and feared that populist demagogues would sway the citizenry, and more learned men should be in charge of that. Population balance was to be addressed in congress.
Ultimately it really never did serve such a purpose (witness our current debacle) and absolutely cannot at this point given the way election processes have evolved and how electors vote.
It has however undermined the perceived electoral legitimacy of 2 of the last 3 Presidents, an gives outsized voting power to certain segments of the population (most notably a few small and a few swing states, places like CA or TX are almost passed by entirely by major candidates on campaign, but Florida gets tons of visits and attention), while making half the states functionally irrelevant in elections, and made it possible to win an election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote.
The EC exists in no other nation for a reason, especially not as it exists today in the US. Ultimately it's a vestigial remnant that serves no purpose except as an exploitable election mechanic.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
Only because each state has 2 senators added to their electoral votes which are determined by population. So the party which has more total states get a small bonus of electoral votes. This isn't an explicit bias - it's just working against the democrats at this point because more total states vote republican.
This is an explicit bias because rural areas are more conservative. This is true in most countries.
This rural conservatism would not be a problem except for the US system giving the senators an extra vote. It's a double bias in the USA because as well as the electoral college, it makes the Senate more likely to be conservative.
You have a good point - but conservative/liberal are not directly tied into a states population - this is what determines the number of votes your state gets in the EC. Maine and rhode island and hawaii are 3 typically blue states and 3 of the lowest populations in the US.
It's not just about total population, but population density, of which Rhode Island is 3rd, Hawaii is 13th and Maine is the outlier at 38th however in that regard.
Yeah - I am not trying to argue that people in cites (cities have high population denisty) aren't more likely to be liberal. They certainly are. A small state can still have a very small population and a high population density though and still benefit from increased EC votes based on their population. I don't see a bias here. I do see an unarguable bias though in this case. If we instead decided to determine the EC by land total land mass. It seems that the republican states are about 400% under represented. I am not going to argue that point - I don't think it should work that way. It wouldn't make any sense to argue that point. Tell me though - how does the argument that the EC is biased against liberals make any more sense? Does not land too offer the country resources and produce for the economy and sustain the population?
The EC was put into place deliberately to prevent large states from overpowering small ones. It is doing that job.
You missed my point I think. It's not about the size of the population, it's about the population density of the state. Population density of the area you live in determines if you're more likely to be a liberal or conservative, it's why you'll see large swathes of a map red, but the state still votes blue, because obviously most of the population lives in a smaller area. As for the EC, the EC gives states with lower population more votes than they deserve (especially those that should only get 1 or 2 votes), because while their population says the state gets 1 or 2 votes, they actually get 3, which means states like California or Texas get shorted votes so the small states (with low population density) can have their 3 votes and maintain the current number of EC votes. On top of that, it's not about states overpowering one another, it's about the will of the people, and every vote being equal. Why should people in Texas or California have their vote matter less than say North Dakota or Wyoming? Or rather, why should North Dakota's votes matter more? The EC directly circumvents the idea that every vote is equal, and is currently actively encouraging the opposite.
(and that's not even getting into how the EC's electors don't even have to vote the way the people in their state said to vote. The way the state voted is more of a recommendation or suggestion.
feeder wrote: The GOP has a habit of circling the wagons in the face of any kind of accusation. Given how quickly they have acted on this, it's unlikely this story doesn't have legs.
Revenge porn or sharing of nudes without consent is one of the scummiest things a guy can do.
I don't disagree with that. Though - do you agree that reserving judgement is a much better practice than assuming guilt? I sure am glad our legal system works that way.
Indeed, and I expect that the police investigation will demonstrate that this guy shared those personal pics from his smart phone. It's pretty easy for investigators to determine this kind of thing.
There's always a (digital) paper trail, and people are never as clever at hiding it as they think.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 22:09:53
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
In any event, ammunition is going to show up on a metal detector no matter what.
Actually that's not entirely true. Not all metals show up equally, and ceramic is always an option as well.
The main issue with plastic guns is that the means to make them have been floating around the internet since 2013, and there's no way to actually stop someone from making one. It's just another charge that can be dropped after the fact.
Think disposable Saturday night special that will only last a few shots.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think Trump is a moron. He is simply deploying the kind of dog whistles and trigger words that his base relates to.
Such as "Democrat".
Yeah, Trump is anything but a moron. He is brilliant in fact, one of few people to figure out he could hijack the democratic process, become president and gain massive power by exploiting people's resentment, complacency, stubbornness and tendency to trust nice-sounding buzzwords and comfortable lies over inconvenient truths. Push the right buttons and the sheep will flock to you. Lie big enough and people won't believe you are lying anymore. It is the most brilliant application of the Große Lüge since the days of that theory's inventor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 00:29:44
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, Trump is anything but a moron. He is brilliant in fact, one of few people to figure out he could hijack the democratic process, become president and gain massive power by exploiting people's resentment, complacency, stubbornness and tendency to trust nice-sounding buzzwords and comfortable lies over inconvenient truths. Push the right buttons and the sheep will flock to you. Lie big enough and people won't believe you are lying anymore. It is the most brilliant application of the Große Lüge since the days of that theory's inventor.
"Charismatic sociopath" and "brilliant" are not the same thing. Sure, Trump managed to find that there are a lot of awful people in the US and exploit it, but that has more to do with a lack of moral standards than brilliance. All he did was extend the republican party's existing strategy to its natural conclusion and openly embrace the awful people instead of trying to keep his hands clean while still exploiting their votes. And now that he has the power I don't think anyone, even conservatives, can argue that he's been effective in using it. It's just like his string of mediocre-at-best business efforts: make a lot of noise, fluff up his ego, and who cares about practical results.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
Only because each state has 2 senators added to their electoral votes which are determined by population. So the party which has more total states get a small bonus of electoral votes. This isn't an explicit bias - it's just working against the democrats at this point because more total states vote republican.
This is an explicit bias because rural areas are more conservative. This is true in most countries.
This rural conservatism would not be a problem except for the US system giving the senators an extra vote. It's a double bias in the USA because as well as the electoral college, it makes the Senate more likely to be conservative.
You have a good point - but conservative/liberal are not directly tied into a states population - this is what determines the number of votes your state gets in the EC. Maine and rhode island and hawaii are 3 typically blue states and 3 of the lowest populations in the US.
It's not just about total population, but population density, of which Rhode Island is 3rd, Hawaii is 13th and Maine is the outlier at 38th however in that regard.
Yeah - I am not trying to argue that people in cites (cities have high population denisty) aren't more likely to be liberal. They certainly are. A small state can still have a very small population and a high population density though and still benefit from increased EC votes based on their population. I don't see a bias here. I do see an unarguable bias though in this case. If we instead decided to determine the EC by land total land mass. It seems that the republican states are about 400% under represented. I am not going to argue that point - I don't think it should work that way. It wouldn't make any sense to argue that point. Tell me though - how does the argument that the EC is biased against liberals make any more sense? Does not land too offer the country resources and produce for the economy and sustain the population?
The EC was put into place deliberately to prevent large states from overpowering small ones. It is doing that job.
You missed my point I think. It's not about the size of the population, it's about the population density of the state. Population density of the area you live in determines if you're more likely to be a liberal or conservative, it's why you'll see large swathes of a map red, but the state still votes blue, because obviously most of the population lives in a smaller area. As for the EC, the EC gives states with lower population more votes than they deserve (especially those that should only get 1 or 2 votes), because while their population says the state gets 1 or 2 votes, they actually get 3, which means states like California or Texas get shorted votes so the small states (with low population density) can have their 3 votes and maintain the current number of EC votes. On top of that, it's not about states overpowering one another, it's about the will of the people, and every vote being equal. Why should people in Texas or California have their vote matter less than say North Dakota or Wyoming? Or rather, why should North Dakota's votes matter more? The EC directly circumvents the idea that every vote is equal, and is currently actively encouraging the opposite.
(and that's not even getting into how the EC's electors don't even have to vote the way the people in their state said to vote. The way the state voted is more of a recommendation or suggestion.
feeder wrote: The GOP has a habit of circling the wagons in the face of any kind of accusation. Given how quickly they have acted on this, it's unlikely this story doesn't have legs.
Revenge porn or sharing of nudes without consent is one of the scummiest things a guy can do.
I don't disagree with that. Though - do you agree that reserving judgement is a much better practice than assuming guilt? I sure am glad our legal system works that way.
Indeed, and I expect that the police investigation will demonstrate that this guy shared those personal pics from his smart phone. It's pretty easy for investigators to determine this kind of thing.
There's always a (digital) paper trail, and people are never as clever at hiding it as they think.
There is no telling what removal of the electoral college would do. Likely there are a lot of people that don't even bother voting because they know their vote doesn't matter. Mainly in states like NY and Cali. It could make a huge difference. Though I do think it would probably be a net gain for democrats - hard to really say without a poll asking people who don't vote if it's because of the EC.
Though there seems to be some doubt from people in this thread about the reason for the EC - I was always taught in government classes and such that the reason was to keep large states from having overwhelming power in elections. In order to keep the smaller states from succeeding. It seems since Clinton. The tally of states is 18 D plus DC compared to 32 R. That is almost a 2/1 ratio of rep to dem for the past 6 elections. To me the thought of giving even more power to those 18 states is seriously wrong. Though I would be willing to talk about a rework of how electoral votes are distributed and or maybe a bonus allocation of electoral votes when you win the popular vote...or something. It does currently seem a little unfair. I do think that smaller states need a little more than equal (based on population) distribution of political power.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, Trump is anything but a moron. He is brilliant in fact, one of few people to figure out he could hijack the democratic process, become president and gain massive power by exploiting people's resentment, complacency, stubbornness and tendency to trust nice-sounding buzzwords and comfortable lies over inconvenient truths. Push the right buttons and the sheep will flock to you. Lie big enough and people won't believe you are lying anymore. It is the most brilliant application of the Große Lüge since the days of that theory's inventor.
"Charismatic sociopath" and "brilliant" are not the same thing. Sure, Trump managed to find that there are a lot of awful people in the US and exploit it, but that has more to do with a lack of moral standards than brilliance. All he did was extend the republican party's existing strategy to its natural conclusion and openly embrace the awful people instead of trying to keep his hands clean while still exploiting their votes. And now that he has the power I don't think anyone, even conservatives, can argue that he's been effective in using it. It's just like his string of mediocre-at-best business efforts: make a lot of noise, fluff up his ego, and who cares about practical results.
Practical results like nearly doubling Obamas economic growth without an economic stimulus? Potential peace with NK? Really? A sociopath? That is pretty over the top - considering he is just playing the game better than anyone else before him. Megalomanic...maybe...but a sociopath? Jezz. I honestly do not care so much about character traits in a leader. I care about results.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 01:53:00
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
tneva82 wrote: If you care about results Trump is bad as his results are lol bad.
elaborate - please.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
JNAProductions wrote: You ask "Why should a majority of the states be under the thumb of a minority?"
I ask "Why should a majority of the people be under the thumb of a minority?"
46% to 48% - there is no miniority here. a 1% shift would represent an even vote. 17 states to 33...
The blue states do have about 100% more econmic power compared to the red states. That is certainly not supporting my arguement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 02:47:55
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
@Joyce_Karam
Follow Follow @Joyce_Karam
More
BREAKING: US Sanctions #Turkey over Pastor Brunson Detention. Serious escalation, unprecedented even during 2003 Iraq rift https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm453 …
Xenomancers wrote: Though there seems to be some doubt from people in this thread about the reason for the EC - I was always taught in government classes and such that the reason was to keep large states from having overwhelming power in elections. In order to keep the smaller states from succeeding. It seems since Clinton. The tally of states is 18 D plus DC compared to 32 R. That is almost a 2/1 ratio of rep to dem for the past 6 elections. To me the thought of giving even more power to those 18 states is seriously wrong. Though I would be willing to talk about a rework of how electoral votes are distributed and or maybe a bonus allocation of electoral votes when you win the popular vote...or something. It does currently seem a little unfair. I do think that smaller states need a little more than equal (based on population) distribution of political power.
The first thing to do is to understand that what you learn in government classes is, at best, a very simplified version of the truth and is often incorrect. That said, you're completely wrong here, on two points:
1) It's an 18/32 ratio only if you consider the arbitrary line of "states" in which Wyoming counts the same as California or Texas. The reality is that much of the 14-state "advantage" for Rs is made up of very small states that, added together, don't even equal California in population. So why shouldn't each of those 18 states have more power than Wyoming?
2) Whatever the intent may have been in practice it has nothing to do with large vs. small states having power. Wyoming has a hugely disproportionate ratio of EV to population but also has minimal power because everyone knows it's an automatic R vote with its EV no matter what anyone does. What the EC does is shift power to a small number of swing states that just happen to have close to a 50/50 R/D ratio and enough EV to matter. The theoretical model is backed up by the evidence of where candidates spend their money and campaigning time, overwhelmingly in whatever states are identified as swing states for the upcoming election.
Practical results like nearly doubling Obamas economic growth without an economic stimulus? Potential peace with NK? Really? A sociopath? That is pretty over the top - considering he is just playing the game better than anyone else before him. Megalomanic...maybe...but a sociopath? Jezz. I honestly do not care so much about character traits in a leader. I care about results.
Yes, sociopath. He proudly bragged about being able to sexually assault women because he's powerful. He refused to pay contractors because it was cheaper to deal with their lawsuits in court and force them to accept a fraction of what they were owed. If Trump has any moral standards we have yet to see them.
As for the others, economic trends are larger than one president and much of it is simply trends that were already established and going to happen regardless of who won the election. Peace with NK is looking like more and more of a joke, with Trump getting played by a dictator for propaganda purposes because he's too incompetent and narcissistic to listen to his advisors. And he really isn't playing the game better than others. His approval ratings are a disaster, his racist Muslim bans keep getting shot down in court, his promise to end Obamacare is a failure, his border wall is not going to happen, and even his own party seems to barely tolerate him because he's better than having a democrat in office. The one thing he's been able to accomplish is more tax cuts for the rich, and that's the easiest possible thing to do when you have republicans in control of everything.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Practical results like nearly doubling Obamas economic growth without an economic stimulus?
a. literally false he's topped out at 4.4%. There's not a single quarter he's actually beat Obama's highest preforming growth, of 4.9%.
Besides, he *should* beat the economy of most of Obama's years. You know why? Because Obama was president during the recession if you remember. And Trump went into office to an extremely strong economy. If the economy during the Trump preforms worse than the economy under Obama, we've got an issue.
Potential peace with NK?
How are we any closer to peace with NK? Did they sign any binding deal? Did they do anything besides some empty promises? And if you payed attention they are still going after ICBMs.
Really? A sociopath? That is pretty over the top - considering he is just playing the game better than anyone else before him. Megalomanic...maybe...but a sociopath? Jezz. I honestly do not care so much about character traits in a leader. I care about results.
So.... putting us in a two way trade war and making pretty much all the world who didn't hate us yet hate us? I guess if those are the results you want.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Xenomancers wrote: Though there seems to be some doubt from people in this thread about the reason for the EC - I was always taught in government classes and such that the reason was to keep large states from having overwhelming power in elections. In order to keep the smaller states from succeeding. It seems since Clinton. The tally of states is 18 D plus DC compared to 32 R. That is almost a 2/1 ratio of rep to dem for the past 6 elections. To me the thought of giving even more power to those 18 states is seriously wrong. Though I would be willing to talk about a rework of how electoral votes are distributed and or maybe a bonus allocation of electoral votes when you win the popular vote...or something. It does currently seem a little unfair. I do think that smaller states need a little more than equal (based on population) distribution of political power.
The first thing to do is to understand that what you learn in government classes is, at best, a very simplified version of the truth and is often incorrect. That said, you're completely wrong here, on two points:
1) It's an 18/32 ratio only if you consider the arbitrary line of "states" in which Wyoming counts the same as California or Texas. The reality is that much of the 14-state "advantage" for Rs is made up of very small states that, added together, don't even equal California in population. So why shouldn't each of those 18 states have more power than Wyoming?
2) Whatever the intent may have been in practice it has nothing to do with large vs. small states having power. Wyoming has a hugely disproportionate ratio of EV to population but also has minimal power because everyone knows it's an automatic R vote with its EV no matter what anyone does. What the EC does is shift power to a small number of swing states that just happen to have close to a 50/50 R/D ratio and enough EV to matter. The theoretical model is backed up by the evidence of where candidates spend their money and campaigning time, overwhelmingly in whatever states are identified as swing states for the upcoming election.
Practical results like nearly doubling Obamas economic growth without an economic stimulus? Potential peace with NK? Really? A sociopath? That is pretty over the top - considering he is just playing the game better than anyone else before him. Megalomanic...maybe...but a sociopath? Jezz. I honestly do not care so much about character traits in a leader. I care about results.
Yes, sociopath. He proudly bragged about being able to sexually assault women because he's powerful. He refused to pay contractors because it was cheaper to deal with their lawsuits in court and force them to accept a fraction of what they were owed. If Trump has any moral standards we have yet to see them.
As for the others, economic trends are larger than one president and much of it is simply trends that were already established and going to happen regardless of who won the election. Peace with NK is looking like more and more of a joke, with Trump getting played by a dictator for propaganda purposes because he's too incompetent and narcissistic to listen to his advisors. And he really isn't playing the game better than others. His approval ratings are a disaster, his racist Muslim bans keep getting shot down in court, his promise to end Obamacare is a failure, his border wall is not going to happen, and even his own party seems to barely tolerate him because he's better than having a democrat in office. The one thing he's been able to accomplish is more tax cuts for the rich, and that's the easiest possible thing to do when you have republicans in control of everything.
I am agreeing with Peregrine
What has the world come to ?!
Practical results like nearly doubling Obamas economic growth without an economic stimulus?
Source?
Potential peace with NK?
Which we failed to do? And undermined our efforts and force projection in the region by removing one of our major military forces from an extremely important region to Powers?
Really? A sociopath?
Yes, he seeks attention, he constantly brags about touching women, he devalues other human beings, oh his actual tapes about grabbing by the P***Y comments. Yeah totally not a sociopath my mistake, clearly he wasn't about to divorce his current wife and was constantly cheating with pornstars....
@Joyce_Karam Follow Follow @Joyce_Karam More BREAKING: US Sanctions #Turkey over Pastor Brunson Detention. Serious escalation, unprecedented even during 2003 Iraq rift https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm453 …
So we don't do anything about us citizens being beaten up by Erodgans body guards, but... OH MY GOD A PASTOR IS DETENTION STOP EVERYTHING.
You ask "Why should a majority of the states be under the thumb of a minority?"
I ask "Why should a majority of the people be under the thumb of a minority?"
Because clearly the Majority are the tyrants.
Indeed, and I expect that the police investigation will demonstrate that this guy shared those personal pics from his smart phone. It's pretty easy for investigators to determine this kind of thing.
Yeah because most people forget that usernames and just giving locations or discussing your area literally leaves a giant amount of information. Its how facebook is able to know your exact political leanings just based on what you like or read.
Which the police is allowed to use!
If you care about results Trump is bad as his results are lol bad.
He's pretty bad. Child Detention Centers, Firing the FBI Heads, causing a constitutional crisis, the ACA disaster, Charleston, Encouraging violence against media, demonizing immigraints, causing a trade war with our closest allies, devalueing the united states credibility, and causing tension in the middle east.... Again.
President Trump’s defender-in-chief, Rudolph W. Giuliani, departed from his client’s usual mantra of “no collusion” on Monday by arguing that even if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, that is not a crime. On Tuesday, Trump repeated on Twitter that “collusion is not a crime.” While he and Giuliani are technically correct, that’s only because collusion is a rubric that in fact encompasses many crimes. As criminal law experts with a collective century of experience prosecuting and defending criminal charges, we believe the sudden pivot to this baseless legal defense signals concern among Trump and his attorneys about emerging evidence that will show collusion.
That term has come to be shorthand for the possibility that the Trump campaign, its advisers or the president himself coordinated with Russia, a hostile foreign power, to help Trump win the election. The argument that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
That conduct was deeply illegal, and it logically follows that if the president or his campaign team actually worked with the Russians in connection with their efforts, they, too, could be liable. That is not only common sense: It is also the law, with a raft of specific “collusion” crimes implicated. ADVERTISING
Many fall under the rubric of conspiracy: an agreement to further illegal action. The core federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, would be triggered here if there were any agreement by Trump or those around him with Russian agents to do something that the law forbids. For example, if in or around the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the Russians and a Trump representative tacitly or explicitly agreed about the release or use of illegally obtained information, that could plausibly support a conspiracy charge. Indeed, there is already some evidence of just that, including Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous email that “if it’s what you say I love it.”
[To lawyers like us, Michael Cohen looks like he’s ready to flip on Trump]
To take another example of a “collusion” crime, the special counsel’s February and July 2018 indictments against alleged Russian hackers charged them with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Their cyber-misconduct defrauded the government by interfering with federal elections. If Trump campaign operatives were a part of that — say, by coordinating the release of hacked DNC emails with Russian operatives or planning speeches or other campaign events around those releases — then the campaign, too, could plausibly be a part of the conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Again, there is already enough evidence to warrant searching review, such as the fact that within hours of the Russian offer of dirt, Trump announced a major speech promising revelations about his opponent (a speech that he would promise again the following week but never actually deliver). Such campaign encouragement of, or involvement in, illegal Russian activity would not just implicate conspiracy law. The Russian conduct appears to have violated federal anti-hacking statutes, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act. The Wiretap Act is especially relevant because we know that the Russians infected the DNC servers with malware that transmitted emails to the Russians’ main server in real time. They were literally intercepting communications, one of the precise activities the act criminalizes.
Even if members of the campaign didn’t encourage or direct that hack, they could still be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting — in lay terms, helping — a violation of those statutes. Aiding and abetting liability could become a factor if, for example, campaign operatives took a step to make sure the Russians used the hacked materials in the best possible way. (Indeed, campaign aides could even have directly violated the Wiretap Act if they themselves used the contents of any illegally intercepted communication, if they knew or had reason to know the communication was intercepted illegally.)
Nor do the varieties of possible criminal “collusion” with Russia end there. If the president knowingly accepted something of value from the Russians, such as harmful information about his opponent, that could be an illegal contribution by foreign nationals. That is an election law crime. If he accepted that information in exchange for the promise of some action (like taking a more accommodating posture toward the Russian invasion of Ukraine) that he or his administration would take if his campaign proved successful, that could constitute an illegal quid pro quo — that is, bribery.
What if the Russians only informed the campaign about their plans to disseminate stolen emails and the campaign did something that interfered with the crime being uncovered? That could constitute the crime of misprision of a felony — essentially of hiding crimes. And if any money transfers were involved to further the collusion — like if the Russians wired money to the National Rifle Association to avoid FEC scrutiny — that could violate the money laundering statute. Both would be forms of illegally working with the Russians. In a word: “collusion.”
[Trump’s lawyers say he’s above the law. They clearly don’t understand it.]
This list merely scratches the surface of the criminal collusion that may be under investigation. In addition, there is of course the coverup of the collusion, which implicates an entirely different set of crimes. Michael T. Flynn and George Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with their dealings with Russia. If recent reports that the president knew about the Trump Tower meeting are true, then Trump Jr. could face similar charges based on his congressional testimony to the contrary.
Those reports are of course based upon Michael Cohen’s alleged willingness to testify about what Trump knew of the meeting with the Russians and when he knew it. It could well be that there is other corroborating evidence that Cohen has or the special counsel has gotten from other sources. There is also the corroboration offered by common sense: Given everything we know about the paterfamilias, it seems unlikely that no one would have told him about a meeting that was important enough to draw the entire senior leadership of the campaign.
As seasoned criminal law practitioners, we recognize when the tactic of arguing that facts do not constitute a crime is used. That typically happens only after it becomes clear that the prosecution will be able to prove the conduct at issue occurred. That makes it particularly interesting that the president and his lawyer are now reaching for the “collusion is not a crime” defense, after the reports that Cohen will say Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting.
At any rate, there can be no question of the legitimate law enforcement interest in investigating the many “collusion” crimes that may have been committed. The American people have a fundamental right to know if the president of the United States worked with Russia to win the election and undermine American democracy. The president and his lawyers’ embrace of the extraordinary defense that such collusion would be entirely lawful raises an obvious question: Why are they so busy defending collusion if there was none?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 05:45:41
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
WASHINGTON — President Trump pushed his lawyers in recent days to try once again to reach an agreement with the special counsel’s office about him sitting for an interview, flouting their advice that he should not answer investigators’ questions, three people briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
Mr. Trump has told advisers he is eager to meet with investigators to clear himself of wrongdoing, the people said. In effect, he believes he can convince the investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, of his belief that their own inquiry is a “witch hunt.”
Mr. Mueller, whose team has negotiated the parameters of an interview with Mr. Trump’s lawyers for eight months, sent his latest proposal in a letter Tuesday night, the three people said. Investigators stood firm on the scope of and topics for their questions for Mr. Trump: possible coordination between his associates and Russia’s election interference and whether he tried to obstruct the investigation.
They did shift slightly on format, agreeing to accept some written answers, including matters in which they want to preserve the ability to have Mr. Trump answer follow-ups in person. In doing so, they firmed up a previously expressed willingness to allow certain answers in writing.
The president’s lawyers are unwilling to concede to follow-ups in person, citing concerns that Mr. Trump will increase his legal exposure, the people said. They have been prepared to tell Mr. Mueller’s office there will be no interview, risking a court fight over a subpoena that could drag into November’s midterm elections, but Mr. Trump pushed them to continue negotiating. The lawyers are likely to counter Mr. Mueller’s proposal in the coming days, according to the three people.
“We’re in the process of responding to their proposal,” the president’s lead lawyer for the investigation, Rudolph W. Giuliani, told reporters after an event in Portsmouth, N.H., on Wednesday. The special counsel’s office declined to comment.
The monthslong back and forth among the special counsel’s office, Mr. Trump’s lawyers and the president himself demonstrates the significant obstacles that still stand in the way of an interview. Mr. Trump has put his lawyers in the vexing position of trying to follow the desires of their client while seeking to protect him from legal jeopardy at the same time.
Mr. Trump’s belief that an interview would bring the investigation to a swift end ignores several realities: that the investigation sprawls into areas well beyond his behavior; the possibility that Justice Department officials will hand over the results of the investigation to lawmakers to decide whether to proceed, thus prolonging the inquiry; and the lack of any public indication from the special counsel about how much work he has ahead of him.
If Mr. Trump ultimately decides to refuse to voluntarily be interviewed, he could sustain some political damage as he would be forced to explain to the public why he cannot answer the special counsel’s questions if he did nothing wrong.
Mr. Trump believes that he needs a daily drumbeat of criticisms against the investigation in order to sway public opinion in his favor. His lawyers have told him he has no personal legal exposure and that the only threat to him would be impeachment proceedings if the Democrats win control of the House in November.
Mr. Mueller remains interested in key areas Mr. Trump’s lawyers worry will prove problematic for him, particularly whether he obstructed justice when he fired James B. Comey as the F.B.I. director. Mr. Comey has testified the president pressured him to drop an investigation into his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.
Legal experts and law enforcement officials who have worked with Mr. Mueller have said that they believe he would pursue all available avenues to get Mr. Trump to answer questions about his conduct and try to determine his intent. Mr. Trump’s lawyers, however, remain unconvinced that Mr. Mueller would risk losing a subpoena fight in court.
For the past week, Mr. Trump has expressed frustration about the confluences of investigations that have dogged him. The president told his advisers that the Russia inquiry and a separate federal investigation in Manhattan into his former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, have undermined him for too long and need to be brought to an end.
The president’s concerns were reignited by both the start of the money fraud trial of his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and the release last week of a recording on which he and Mr. Cohen are heard discussing hush money payments during the campaign to a former Playboy model who says she had an affair with Mr. Trump. He denies the affair.
On Wednesday morning, those frustrations burst into public view. Mr. Trump fired off a string of tweets, including a call for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end Mr. Mueller’s investigation.
“This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further,” Mr. Trump wrote. He ignored that Mr. Sessions has recused himself from the investigation, which is overseen by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein.
wait what...
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Long time Trump supporter spinning things for his benefit.
Last time this came up it eventually came out his interview had to involve no questions on collusion as a pre-condition.
That said, apparently Mueller is looking for that interview this time, doubt the pre-conditions though as that's exactly what he wants to talk to him about.
The last time I saw a case that was this much of a slam dunk, a bunch of morons who took over a bird sanctuary by force and livestreamed the whole thing... by and large managed to get off anyway. Even such open and closed charges as "firearm in a federal building" with literally tons of video of them doing just that.
So I'm definitely not going to count my convictions before they hatch.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 13:16:35
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Practical results like nearly doubling Obamas economic growth without an economic stimulus?
a. literally false he's topped out at 4.4%. There's not a single quarter he's actually beat Obama's highest preforming growth, of 4.9%.
Besides, he *should* beat the economy of most of Obama's years. You know why? Because Obama was president during the recession if you remember. And Trump went into office to an extremely strong economy. If the economy during the Trump preforms worse than the economy under Obama, we've got an issue.
Potential peace with NK?
How are we any closer to peace with NK? Did they sign any binding deal? Did they do anything besides some empty promises? And if you payed attention they are still going after ICBMs.
Really? A sociopath? That is pretty over the top - considering he is just playing the game better than anyone else before him. Megalomanic...maybe...but a sociopath? Jezz. I honestly do not care so much about character traits in a leader. I care about results.
So.... putting us in a two way trade war and making pretty much all the world who didn't hate us yet hate us? I guess if those are the results you want.
I don't know if it's intentional or not. You seem to be missing the worst Obama years from your chart.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Which were on his first years. But first years go from previous years. Much like current economic boon actually started during obama period and trump has at most hurt it with his trade wars
Xenomancers wrote: I don't know if it's intentional or not. You seem to be missing the worst Obama years from your chart.
Wait, are you basing the idea that the economy's growth has doubled under Trump by artificially restricting it to the first few years Obama was president (when he inherited a recession) instead of the later, normal growth?
By that metric I am a better basketball player than Michael Jordan, if you only count the times I scored a free throw and the times he missed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 14:29:41
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Its almost like how we went over the fact that Trump is perfroming just below average, not twice as well as Obama (more like 1.5) and Trump is at the bottom of the presidential pack for taking office on an upswing. But feelings>facts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 14:32:34
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its almost like how we went over the fact that Trump is perfroming just below average, not twice as well as Obama (more like 1.5) and Trump is at the bottom of the presidential pack for taking office on an upswing. But feelings>facts.
But my feels say he is doing ten times better, he has conquered half the planet!
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Well there is also the news he wants to up tariffs on China from 10 to 25 percent. That's going to cut into his growth numbers even worse. Made in China, now 1/4th more expensive to your regular American.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Steelmage99 wrote: In light of the recent talk about voter IDs in this thread.
President Trumps claims/thinks that going grocery shopping requires picture ID.
Specifically at 0:30
Pre-dementia? Moron? Charlatan?
This is classic Democratic Party™ press coverage. The media doesn’t want to deal with the fact that Trump’s point was correct. We have to show ID for all kinds of things.... everyone has identification. He was making the point we should require ID to vote. Basically red meat for his supporters at that rally.
If you take him literally did Trump commit a speako? Not really, unless you're unusually pandentic. Trump wasn’t making a specific point about groceries, he used groceries as an example. He continued to say that “You go out and you want to buy anything.... you need ID and you need your picture.” Its obvious that Trump was talking about paying for purchases (groceries or otherwise) with a check or credit card. Yes, Trump is so old that he knows when people actually paid for things with checks. Hell, I remember it was common mere 25 years ago (and still see it every once awhile today) paying groceries with a check. If you pay with credit card the vendor may ask for an ID as well. This isn't uncommon.
The problem is that this feeds into the #FakeNews narrative that the media is reporting in obvious bad faith by deliberately pretending to NOT understand Trump’s arguments, and doggedly refusing to engage the point he was making... which is, identification is required all the time, we all have identification or can easily get it, the only reason not to require it for voting is a desire to enable voter fraud. By playing dumb, the media can avoid discussing the whole requiring IDs when voting altogether.
Don't get me wrong, Trump is a moron.
But, the underlying pint here is valid....there are countless areas of life in which you do need an ID to perform simple, basic, everyday tasks.
EDIT: although, its a hysterical thought exercise of Trump going to the grocery store... He’d prolly have a housekeeper pull a Trump Steak out of the freezer, Trump vodka out of storage and drop by a D’Agostino’s to do a monthly order, have it put on his tab and have it delivered to Trump Tower.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 17:17:30