Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. Man bites dog stories are news. Dog bites man stories are not.
  2. I'm not a litigator but I worked quite a bit with depositions of expert witnesses. An unskilled expert witness can get in quite a bit of trouble. Good ones know how to always tell the truth but not give the other lawyer what he's after. This doesn't involve hiding the truth or being coy. They tell them everything, IF THEY ASK. And not a damn thing they don't. And the transcript is not a simple question with a simple answer. The expert witness will concede all the uncomfortable facts that need to be conceded. No more. And the ones conceded will not be in a good format to use in court. The behavior in depositions is very different from the witness stand.
  3. An argument about whether the naked emperor has clothes always has value in the large. In the small the person who initiates it may get shot. Probably does. I'm not sure what Kanye said. I've heard a number of people tell me and they're all over the map. Some spins - like the one where slaves had a choice - are nuts. Others - like slavery ended 150 years ago and if you think you're a slave it's your own fault - are so obvious they seem trite. In any case, I have not heard a spin that seems worthy of true debate. Arguing about what he really said seems silly, as it's about Kanye, not slavery.
  4. I'm guessing. Everybody is. Guess away. That's what the board is for.
  5. If you've read my posts I have been suggesting that for more than a year. I was suggesting that (and poo-pooing election collusion) when nobody else was. If it can be shown, then Trump will go down. But knowing he's money laundering and demonstrating it are tough. I led projects billing millions which investigated financial misdeeds. You always know the answer right away. getting the facts for the report is the hard part. Another big possibility is foreign corrupt practices act violations. It's tough to believe he's doing these projects with very corrupt people in Third World countries and staying in compliance with the FCPA. But proving it to the public may be tough. Then you've got his deals with the mob in NYC developments and Atlantic City casinos. Again is paying three times market to the Genoveses for cement part of a crime or not? The story will make all the GOP Senators puke and run or it will make them grit their teeth and do nothing. We don't have the story. Until we do we're just guessing.
  6. Hypothesis to consider: Trump won't get brought down on a technicality, as legal gotcha or even some garden variety crime like lying under oath about sex with an intern. To get him there will have to be something that disgusts people in the political center and many Republicans. Clinton didn't get bounced but Nixon did. People know it when they see it. To make obstruction charges fly under this scenario the American public must learn about some disgusting act that Trump was trying to hide. "He's trying to hide something so that's obstruction" is not a storyline which will play. We must learn the something. If there's a "something" all the things he's been doing to impede the investigation will mortify us. If there's no "something" then inappropriate behavior to stop Mueller from fucking with him won't move the needle enough no matter how many details of it emerge. Are the Russians trying to squeeze him with blackmail material? Did he negotiate with the Russians to help get elected? Is there a "something" he's trying to hide? I'm not asserting this as fact. I'm entertaining the thought. It's my working assumption in this mystery.
  7. The reports say that Trump and some of his team think that they can generate a narrative that Mueller is overreaching. The whole Trump strategy seems to me to be a public relations strategy, not a legal strategy. I have no real confidence in second-guessing whether that's smart or foolish. It seems to increase his legal problems, but I doubt if Trump's fate will be determined legally. Congress and the public will decide his fate, so maybe he's smarter than we think. Who knows?
  8. The 49 "questions" were really 49 topic areas identified orally in a meeting. Mueller's team did not provide a list of questions, and there isn't the remotest suggestion that Sekulow's notes constitute the extentent of what Mueller could ask. You can bet that a topic would be introduced with a general question and there would be follow-ups focusing on conflicts between the answer and the facts. Why would it be any other way?
  9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-raised-possibility-of-presidential-subpoena-in-meeting-with-trumps-legal-team/2018/05/01/2bdec08e-4d51-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.a4b39f642e51 It's his document. I doubt if he was the leaker.
  10. sawbonz, I'm with you. This country is run by 325MM people. The government, and much less the President, play a far, far smaller role than people indicate. And that's good. The President has a bunch of problems. But when I go down the list of things he's actually done - appointments he's made, orders he's given, bills he's signed - I see more good than bad. I wish it were better. There are a bunch of unforced errors (e.g. travel ban, being Putin's Bitch, raising tariffs). And there are some missed opportunities. But he's shoving in the right direction (e.g. tax cuts, judicial appointments, deregulation, no bow and apologize). But, most of all, he isn't Hillary!
  11. They were mean to GWB too. Not as much. The press corps does not like GOP Presidents. Any of them. But that's their choice. I think the White House should deal with them accordingly. And I have no doubt this White House will.
  12. I'm not advocating the traditional dinner. I'm noting that we no longer have the traditional dinner. I think the hosts should be free to have whatever kind of dinner they want. I do think, though, that they should be honest about the objective. Whether it's (1) a "truth to power"/fun for liberal journalists dinner, (2) a nerd prom or (3) a party designed to improve relations between the White House and the press corps they should be upfront about their objective and work to make the event comport with the objective. They shouldn't let their event get hijacked. Nut it's their event to do with as they choose, or even to let it get fucked up because they can't exert the right kind of leadership.
  13. I was incredibly critical of that. In fact the performance convinced me to write in Jeb Bush. It was the first time in about 400 votes I had not voted for the R on the ballot.
  14. I agree. It's now about "confronting power". It's no longer about improving relations between the White House and the press corps. There is absolutely no reason for the White House to attend. The objective has changed.
  15. Tell "funny" jokes about your frat brother, the groom, some place other than the wedding reception.
  16. The dinner is a case of people confusing the means and the end. The objective of the meeting is to foster better relations between the White House and the press corps. Jokes are a means of having a good timer and improving relations. Jokes are the means to an end, not the end. I am reminded of speeches at a wedding reception where the best man gets carried away in his speech telling "funny" stories about the groom. His frat brothers think it's hilarious. The bride's mom is pissed. Or the softball game designed to improve relations between the police and the fire department, which ends in fights, players trying to injure the opponent and mass cheating. People lose sight of the objective. The objective of the dinner has changed. It is no longer designed to improve relations between the White House and the press corps. The hosts don't know how to run the thing. They've lost sight of their purpose and created a new purpose - create entertainment for the liberal press corps. I think the White House should, and will, opt out.
  17. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2644?q={"search"%3A["Judiciary"]}&r=6 Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act This bill sets forth requirements and limitations with respect to the removal from office of a special counsel appointed by the Attorney General, or of another official appointed by the Attorney General who exercises a similar degree of independence from the Department of Justice (DOJ) chain of command. Specifically, a special counsel or other appointed official: may only be removed by the Attorney General or the most senior Senate-confirmed DOJ official, in certain circumstances; may only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause; must be provided written notice that specifies the reason for removal; and may file an action to challenge the removal not later than 10 days after notice was provided.
  18. Everything, including that, is still in negotiation.
  19. The Supreme Court will decide a case on sports betting (unless it becomes moot). How will they rule? How should they rule?
  20. It doesn't matter what MSNBC does, just like it doesn't matter what the National Enquirer or Infowars does. People who like their act don't care about the truth or fairness or ...
  21. http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks
  22. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/10/how-unusual-are-trumps-not-qualified-judicial-nominations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49ccfdaa79b6
  23. I have almost no interest in the Guns, God and Gays stuff.
  24. I believe that the WHCD hosts have the right to do what they want. They've chosen to change what the dinner has historically been, and that's their right. Before the change I thought that politicians should go and be a good sport. I no longer have that position. I think any GOP politician or any journalist who wants to be viewed as objective should no longer attend what has become a Democratic pep rally. I think the dinner will wither up and die. The tipping point will be when the George Stephanopoulos type see it as bad business to attend.
×
×
  • Create New...