The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

3 minutes ago, Pods said:

@TwiceHorn That's what I've seen so far. The only thing stopping/slowing lawsuits has been standing. Private parties don't have it, but a judge recently ruled that Maryland and DC do. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dc-maryland-may-proceed-with-lawsuit-alleging-trump-violated-emoluments-clause/2018/03/28/0514d816-32ae-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html?utm_term=.4c61366139c0

In that hearing, the Justice Department, arguing on Trump’s behalf, made a similar argument in an effort to throw out the attorney generals’ suit. Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer, said that states such as Maryland had no right to sue Trump over these clauses.

“The states are not roving constitutional watchdogs,” Shumate said. He continued: “This is ultimately a political dispute. It should be left to the political process.”

In his ruling Wednesday, Messitte rejected that idea.

“The thrust of the President’s argument that only Congress can act is particularly concerning,” he wrote in a footnote. “Suppose a majority (simple? two-thirds?) of Congress (the House? the Senate? both?) is controlled by one party — that of the President. And suppose the Congress never undertakes to approve or disapprove the President’s receipt of such ‘emoluments.’ ”

“The President could continue to receive unlimited ‘emoluments’ from foreign and state governments without the least oversight and with absolute impunity,” Messitte wrote.

 

  Hide contents

 

D.C., Maryland can proceed with lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clauses

By David A. Fahrenthold and Jonathan O'Connell March 28 Email the author

A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with a lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president.

In his opinion, Messitte gave credence to arguments by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) that Trump unfairly profits from business at downtown Washington’s Trump International Hotel, in which the president continues to hold a financial interest. 

Messitte cited examples of government clients — including Kuwait and Bahrain — 
patronizing the Washington hotel, possibly to the detriment of competitors and taxpayers. He wrote that Maryland and the District had sufficiently argued that Trump’s hotel “has had and almost certainly will continue to have an unlawful effect on competition.”

As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.

If the ruling stands, it could allow Racine and Frosh to seek internal documents from the Trump Organization to determine how much money the Washington hotel has taken in from state and foreign governments.

Messitte’s ruling largely narrowed the lawsuit’s scope to the Washington hotel, saying that the District and Maryland had standing to sue because they could plausibly claim to have been injured by Trump’s receipt of payments from foreign and state governments.

For one thing, he said, the two jurisdictions have financial interests in their own convention centers — one in downtown Washington, another in Bethesda, Md. They argued that the Trump hotel had an unfair advantage in the battle for meeting business.

In addition, the court said, the District and Maryland could speak on behalf of their own businesses, which might also see clients lured away by the chance to do business with the president.

“The Court concludes that [the District and Maryland] are, quite plausibly, trying to protect a large segment of their commercial residents and hospitality industry employees from economic harm,” he wrote.

 3:06

 

The four biggest controversies surrounding Trump’s D.C. hotel

Messitte also raised examples of state governments having to make decisions related to the president’s company, which Frosh and Racine termed an “intolerable dilemma” between losing revenue or risking repercussions from the president. The judge cited a decision by District tax officials to lower the Trump hotel’s tax bill by nearly $1 million and a $6 million tax break being granted to a Trump-affiliated development by Mississippi officials.

The Justice Department, which is representing the president in this case, did not immediately say whether it would appeal. “As we argued, we believe this case should be dismissed, and we will continue to defend the president in court,” spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.

After consulting with attorneys, Trump vowed last year to donate some profits from foreign governments to the U.S. treasury. This month the Trump Organization said it donated $151,470 but declined to explain how it came up with the amount.

Although Trump said he gave up day-to-day management of his business while he is in the White House, he still owns his businesses and can withdraw money from them at any time. 

A statement from the Trump Organization said: “While the Trump Organization is not a party to the lawsuit, the Court’s decision today does significantly narrow the scope of the case. The Court has yet to rule on several additional arguments, which we believe should result in a complete dismissal.” 

In an interview, Frosh said that “overall we are extremely pleased” and that he and Racine would be seeking the president’s financial documents and tax returns as the case proceeded. 

“The basic principle here is Donald Trump is not above the law, and the court recognized that and said that we can enforce the nation’s original anti-corruption law — the emoluments clause,” he said.

Those clauses were dusty corners of the Constitution, rarely tested in court during 240-plus years of American history. 

One bars federal officers from taking presents, or emoluments, from foreign governments. The other prohibits presidents from taking side payments from individual states.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that Trump violated one or both of these bans, because foreign and state governments have rented hotel rooms or banquet halls at his businesses.

Trump’s attorneys have said that the term “emolument” was never meant to cover transactions such as this — not outright gifts to the president but purchases made at fair-market value.

The first step in all these cases has been an argument over what lawyers call “standing” — in essence, determining whether the plaintiff has a right to sue.

In December, for instance, a federal judge threw out one of the emoluments lawsuits, brought by the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that the watchdog group lacked standing. He stated that the Constitution gave Congress — and only Congress — the right to enforce these rules. 

“As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” Daniels wrote in his ruling.

The case involving the District and Maryland had a hearing earlier this year before Messitte at a federal court in Greenbelt, Md.

In that hearing, the Justice Department, arguing on Trump’s behalf, made a similar argument in an effort to throw out the attorney generals’ suit. Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer, said that states such as Maryland had no right to sue Trump over these clauses.

“The states are not roving constitutional watchdogs,” Shumate said. He continued: “This is ultimately a political dispute. It should be left to the political process.”

In his ruling Wednesday, Messitte rejected that idea.

“The thrust of the President’s argument that only Congress can act is particularly concerning,” he wrote in a footnote. “Suppose a majority (simple? two-thirds?) of Congress (the House? the Senate? both?) is controlled by one party — that of the President. And suppose the Congress never undertakes to approve or disapprove the President’s receipt of such ‘emoluments.’ ”

“The President could continue to receive unlimited ‘emoluments’ from foreign and state governments without the least oversight and with absolute impunity,” Messitte wrote.

 

 

Thanks for that.  I'll need to read the opinion, but the quoted portion of the judge's ruling is unfortunately pretty underwhelming from a standing standpoint.  But judicial reporting is horribad.

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

Saying so now doesn't mean a hell of lot.  You have a long posting history and people don't forget where posters generally have stood on issues over time, even as specifics fade over time.  In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing around 2010 that Dems should vote for Rs in Congress because it isn't a good thing when one party has control of the entire government.  I remember because I argued the same thing under W, and that's the only time anyone else made the same argument (and I did vote R for the House in 2010).  Funny enough, you recently had the opportunity to do just that with a president who needs opposition more than anyone before and a pedophile R running for Senate, and you couldn't bring yourself to actually vote for a D. 

That's the thing though.  You admittedly post insincerely for "entertainment" to get reactions from people.   And then complain when people see through your bullshit.   I wouldn't be surprised if you not only voted Roy Moore, but were out handing out fliers for him.

You can't even get my arguments straight when it's from the same day and you're looking at the post.

I'll repeat:  There are decisions we should make with a partial set of info and some we should make with all the info.  As an example I have many judgements I'll make against the head of the Gambino crime family with what little I know.  But I would wait for a hard case before I made a decision to imprison him.  As I sit here I don't have that info.

 

[Sawbonz 27,969]

39 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I don’t need to know what some guy on npr said to know what the constitution itself says. It is perfectly clear for anyone who wants to read it. 

But with the inaction of Congress, at least they are all admitting to us now that not a single one of them cares to follow their oath of office, because none of them are defending the Constitution. 

So what if, and I’m not saying it will happen, but what if the plaintiffs lose? 

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

...  But judicial reporting is horribad.

If anyone has a strong knowledge of a subject they are generally appalled by what they read or hear about it in the media.  The media don't lie, but the crew up little facts and they have a bias.  In the end, the story they tell is not a fair picture of what happened.

If you know a lot about widget making and you see a report on a problem with widgets you'll be snarling about all things that are misleading.  The reporter will say something about widgets and you'll say to yourself "Yeah, that's generally true about widgets, but it's not true for blue widgets, and the widget in the report is a blue widget.  The reporter doesn't know enough about widgets or he wants to misrepresent things to get a better story.  It's not clear.  But it's clear that the story is "horribad".

[staboner 5,062]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Autobashing is not my favorite thing about Surly, and taking Tahoe's post at face value and out of context would lead many to your conclusion.

The problem is that this standard is only applied along the party line. Another problem is that you can use the standard all the way to the philosophical stance that nothing can really be known.

Mixed into a reasonable sounding post is the notion that the NY Times prints only facts that they "like." Oh, they're believable and everything except that they're prejudiced as to which facts they want to publish. With that stance about news sources, you can hold out forever that you don't have all the facts. That's the point of this fall back position.

Oh, I'm a reasonable person who only brings donuts to the meeting. I know the New York Times doesn't lie, but do they really want to print something they don't like? See. We all have to go to alternate sources who print the facts that they like which just happen to be the facts that I like and will support my seeming reasonable position of waiting on all the facts.

As he did in the Alabama senate race, Tahoe seems like he would stand before the burning building wondering if there really was a fire while everybody screaming from the windows either succumbed to the flames or leaped to their deaths.

I don't hate Tahoe. Over the years he has been a civil poster even if a very partisan one. I'd never consider putting him on ignore. He represents a lot of lost GOPs who can't tear themselves away from the changing dogma of the party. He stays in step.

Tahoe is a party hack and lives in the 80s. Party hacks are keeping this country from progressing right now. They are stopping us from solving problems. They are enabling the devils to run the circus. 

The post in reference is fine. But just like the NYTimes being select in its choices, so is Tahoe (and that post). Same same, but not different. Party hack. I do hate because its holding us all back. Its insanity, its backwards, and it shows a completely lack of judgement and perception about the current world in which we live, the problems our greater society is facing and the fact that the existing government infrastructure isn't going to solve shit. 

beautiful day out friends. Have a nice, nuke-free weekend

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

You can't even get my arguments straight when it's from the same day and you're looking at the post.

I'll repeat:  There are decisions we should make with a partial set of info and some we should make with all the info.  As an example I have many judgements I'll make against the head of the Gambino crime family with what little I know.  But I would wait for a hard case before I made a decision to imprison him.  As I sit here I don't have that info.

 

Right.  It's always everyone else who doesn't get what you are really saying. It must be hard to be so misunderstood! 

[TahoeHorn 107]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Right.  It's always everyone else who doesn't get what you are really saying. It must be hard to be so misunderstood! 

Read what I said CAREFULLY.  Try.  Now take this quiz:  Who did I say doesn't get what I say?  A.  Everyone, or B. You.

I know who on this board can pass this quiz and who can't.

 

I'll give you the key phrase with a big hint to try to make it easy:

You can't even get my arguments straight 

Edited May 5, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[hobbes2702 13,280]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which one?  To my knowledge there are no opinions of the OLC directly addressing Trump's situation, only some on other situations, most not involving the President, from which one can read between the lines or connect the dots, but there is nothing directly on point.

 

I detest what Trump is doing with respect to self dealing and non-divestiture from his businesses, but it isn't clear to me that there is a remedy for it other than impeachment.

You are 100% right that non address trump directly. I probably wasn’t clear. I wasn’t talking about the emoluments clause as a criminal matter. I brought it up in response to Tahoe asking Hugo and others what they would remove the president for and what evidence of that they have. I’m simply saying that anyone saying that he shouldn’t have already been impeached is ignoring the emoluments clause in its entirety 

[triplehorn 2,664]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Regarding the wild Judge in the Manafort case.

 

The Maddow show from last night is worth a watch in entirity.  The opening lede was on Rod Rosenstein, with a historical retrospective on his hero, former AG under FDR, SCOTUS Justice, and lead prosecutor for the US at the Nuremberg Trials, Robert H. Jackson.  They tied Rosenstein's two public appearances this week ("DoJ will not be extorted") to Jackson's standards including the incredibly important looming showdown re Congress demanding DoJ turn over materials pertinent to their ongoing investigation. Spoiler: DAG ain't budging.

The final segments focused on Judge Ellis and bringing the heat on Dreeben and Mueller prosecutors on why they hived off the Cohen investigation while not doing so for Manafort.  Short answer from Dreeben: the current charges against Manafort stem from a direct link to Trump/Russia campaign coordination.

 

A Judge Questioned What Paul Manafort’s Indictment Really Had To Do With Russia:

 

Quote

Manafort was clearly within the special counsel’s area of interest because of his role in the campaign and his affiliations with Ukraine and Russia, Dreeben said. In trying to understand the full scope of Manafort’s possible Russia ties, he said, they had to “follow the money where it led.”

[...]

The judge asked the government to produce an unredacted copy of an August 2017 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller, which laid out in greater detail the matters that Mueller’s office was authorized to investigate. The majority of the memo, which was publicly filed, was redacted. Ellis said he wanted to see it — it would only be produced to him, not to the public or the defense — to determine if prosecutors were truthful in saying the rest of the document didn’t relate to Manafort.

Dreeben said he would need to consult with his office and the intelligence community. The judge gave the special counsel’s office two weeks to turn it over.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by triplehorn

[Pods 7,608]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Thanks for that.  I'll need to read the opinion, but the quoted portion of the judge's ruling is unfortunately pretty underwhelming from a standing standpoint.  But judicial reporting is horribad.

That may be on me. That was the last part of the article and I clipped it and pasted, because I knew lots of people wouldn't read the article itself. 

Here's the first part on standing. Seems solid to me, but I'm a scientist, not a lawyer. Trump's hotel is getting business at the expense of other DC and Maryland hotels due to him being president. 

In his opinion, Messitte gave credence to arguments by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) that Trump unfairly profits from business at downtown Washington’s Trump International Hotel, in which the president continues to hold a financial interest. 

Messitte cited examples of government clients — including Kuwait and Bahrain — 
patronizing the Washington hotel, possibly to the detriment of competitors and taxpayers. He wrote that Maryland and the District had sufficiently argued that Trump’s hotel “has had and almost certainly will continue to have an unlawful effect on competition.”

 As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.

[Pods 7,608]

35 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You can't even get my arguments straight when it's from the same day and you're looking at the post.

I'll repeat:  There are decisions we should make with a partial set of info and some we should make with all the info.  As an example I have many judgements I'll make against the head of the Gambino crime family with what little I know.  But I would wait for a hard case before I made a decision to imprison him.  As I sit here I don't have that info.

 

Everyone on here knows your extensive posting history Tahoe. Impeachment is a political process and you practice that more than anyone else on this board. You are always way-out over your skis when there is the slightest sliver of Democratic impropriety and you shove your head up your ass so you can't see or hear every time it's a Republican. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Kellyanne Conway making some odd Twitter moves.

 

 

Looks like she exchanged her propaganda accounts for lawyers, journalists, and ex-FBI agents.

She can DM them if they follow her back. 

peculiar

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[triplehorn 2,664]

compromised account seems possible if not likely

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

compromised account seems possible if not likely

Her husband maybe

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Gil Bang 26,164]

40 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

The Maddow show from last night is worth a watch in entirity.  The opening lede was on Rod Rosenstein, with a historical retrospective on his hero, former AG under FDR, SCOTUS Justice, and lead prosecutor for the US at the Nuremberg Trials, Robert H. Jackson.  They tied Rosenstein's two public appearances this week ("DoJ will not be extorted") to Jackson's standards including the incredibly important looming showdown re Congress demanding DoJ turn over materials pertinent to their ongoing investigation. Spoiler: DAG ain't budging.

The final segments focused on Judge Ellis and bringing the heat on Dreeben and Mueller prosecutors on why they hived off the Cohen investigation while not doing so for Manafort.  Short answer from Dreeben: the current charges against Manafort stem from a direct link to Trump/Russia campaign coordination.

 

A Judge Questioned What Paul Manafort’s Indictment Really Had To Do With Russia:

 

 

 

 

[Gil Bang 26,164]

Manafort was clearly within the special counsel’s area of interest because of his role in the campaign and his affiliations with Ukraine and Russia, Dreeben said. In trying to understand the full scope of Manafort’s possible Russia ties, he said, they had to “follow the money where it led.”

 

 

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

24 minutes ago, Pods said:

Everyone on here knows your extensive posting history Tahoe.  ...

I'm sure everyone uses people's posting history differently.  I use it to decide whether I want to read it or skim it.  It's the same criteria I use to decide whether I want to read the National Review or the New York Times, and whether I read InfoWars or the National Enquirer.  I read the National Review and the New York Times.  I don't read InfoWars or the National Enquirer.

The political slant of the article is not a prime consideration in whether I read it.  I want a variety of political slants.  My prime consideration is whether I trust the underlying facts if there are any.  Opinions I don't like are fine.  In fact I may be more inclined to read an opinion which is not in lock-step with mine.   What's not fine are lies or misrepresentations of the underlying facts.

I watch more CNN than Fox.  I watch This Week without fail even though it is heavily slanted left.  I usually know which panelists are which.  I'm not troubled if the host and three of four panelists are left.  I'm more troubled if they say things I know they don't believe. I find some CNN and some Fox unwatchable.  

[Gil Bang 26,164]

You should give Maddow a try, Tahoe.  She's whip smart.  

Assuming that you can get MSNBC in bama, of course. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

One more thing:

I know how the Right and Center think much better than I know how the Left thinks.  I hear the candid views of many people on the Right.  I have much much less access to the candid views of people on the Left.  I come to this board mostly to hear those views.  My comments are designed largely to solicit the type of views I don't hear in my daily life, or if I do are by nuts or are not candid.

Hornfans, Shaggy and Surly have all had some good posters on the Right.  I don't pay so much attention to them.  I have access to massive numbers (relatively speaking) of people on the Right.

[TahoeHorn 107]

5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

You should give Maddow a try, Tahoe.  She's whip smart.  

Assuming that you can get MSNBC in bama, of course. 

I watch her more than you think.  But like me sometime she's giving her real views and sometimes she's talking smack with a twinkle in her eye.  She's worth watching in the first case but not in the last.

You should learn how satellite works.

Edited May 5, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

You should try MSNBC during the day, specifically Nicole Wallace at 3PM.

She’s a Republican that worked in the GWB White House and usually has other conservatives on (not Trumpublicans).

For the legal stuff, The Beat with Ari Melber at 5PM is good

Chris Wallace and Joe Scarbrough blow goats

Chuck Todd is a tool

Maddow is hit or miss but when she hits, she really hits

Lawrence O’Donnell is annoying AF

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bolverk 30,088]

For background from the house intelligence committee's minority report on who Baker is:

Quote

One of the most important revelations is that the FBI General Counsel and FBI Director’s chief of staff listened in on James Comey’s side of at least some phone conversations with the president, in which Mr. Trump reportedly engaged in efforts to alter the course of the Russia investigation. As the Minority report states, “(Jim) Rybicki and Baker also heard Comey’s side of phone conversations with the President, in real time.” It is, however, not clear which particular phone conversations with the president they were able to hear in this manner. Comey testified to Congress that he had six separate phone conversations with Trump.

Both the FBI Director and Deputy Director interpreted one of the president’s phone calls as threatening Comey if he did not lift the cloud of the Russia investigation. In a phone conversation on April 11, Trump said he wanted Comey to lift the cloud, “because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know,” according to Comey’s written testimony and contemporaneous memo. But why would the president refer to his loyalty to Comey rather than Comey’s “honest loyalty” to the president?

McCabe testified that the FBI Director and he “weren’t 100 percent sure what that was” but interpreted it as “a veiled threat.” 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Lisa Page also resigned yesterday 

[Mdhorn 6,148]

58 minutes ago, Pods said:

Everyone on here knows your extensive posting history Tahoe. Impeachment is a political process and you practice that more than anyone else on this board. You are always way-out over your skis when there is the slightest sliver of Democratic impropriety and you shove your head up your ass so you can't see or hear every time it's a Republican. 

That's how you know he's got a huge ass--over the last year, it's been embedded pretty consistently.  

Edited May 5, 2018 by Mdhorn

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 hours ago, Blotto said:

 

 

It appears Tahoe is drunk from the intoxicating scent of Trump's KFC infused farts. 

Although you are trying to say Tahoe is drunk from the scent of trump kfc farts I’m going to interpret you to mean that trump has never eaten kfc and has never farted. And therefore I am arguing with you that you are in fact wrong. So just go ahead and admit you are wrong my brother. 

[David Dennison 19,314]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You should try MSNBC during the day, specifically Nicole Wallace at 3PM.

She’s a Republican that worked in the GWB White House and usually has other conservatives on.

For the legal stuff, The Beat with Ari Melber at 5PM is good

Chris Wallace and Joe Scarbrough blow goats

Chuck Todd is a tool

Maddow is hit or miss but when she hits, she really hits

Laurence O’Donnell is annoying AF

This is my all time favorite Lawrence O'Donnell clip.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Trump is going to be pissed when this judge doesn’t rule his way.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

Read what I said CAREFULLY.  Try.  Now take this quiz:  Who did I say doesn't get what I say?  A.  Everyone, or B. You.

I know who on this board can pass this quiz and who can't.

 

I'll give you the key phrase with a big hint to try to make it easy:

You can't even get my arguments straight 

Yeah, it took me going back a whole 5 hours to find the last time you complained about how someone else read another post of yours to mean the "opposite" of what it actually meant:

5 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I said the opposite.  He can't shut it down for that reason.  But there is a long list of reasons he can shut it down for.  We have to know why he wants it shut down.  And Mueller will be able to tell us.  He'll find what Trump doesn't want found or he'll tell us nothing is there - that Trump just doesn't like being investigated.  Who does?

You're just so misunderstood that others keep reading your words and interpreting them to mean the opposite of what you so clearly mean.  It's not at all that you're a disingenuous hack who has already admitted that he trolls for reactions.  Sad! 

[Pods 7,608]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

One more thing:

I know how the Right and Center think much better than I know how the Left thinks.  I hear the candid views of many people on the Right.  I have much much less access to the candid views of people on the Left.  I come to this board mostly to hear those views.  My comments are designed largely to solicit the type of views I don't hear in my daily life, or if I do are by nuts or are not candid.

Hornfans, Shaggy and Surly have all had some good posters on the Right.  I don't pay so much attention to them.  I have access to massive numbers (relatively speaking) of people on the Right.

Which is what makes you an active collaborator and not the bystander you pretend to be. As far as I know, you're the only poster on this board who has any part of the GOP's ear and you choose to watch the rampant hypocrisy and blatant amoral behavior while tut-tutting quietly to yourself. Assuming you are telling the truth there and not secretly approving of the policies, which I'm not sure you are. 

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

3 hours ago, Pods said:

That may be on me. That was the last part of the article and I clipped it and pasted, because I knew lots of people wouldn't read the article itself. 

Here's the first part on standing. Seems solid to me, but I'm a scientist, not a lawyer. Trump's hotel is getting business at the expense of other DC and Maryland hotels due to him being president. 

In his opinion, Messitte gave credence to arguments by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) that Trump unfairly profits from business at downtown Washington’s Trump International Hotel, in which the president continues to hold a financial interest. 

Messitte cited examples of government clients — including Kuwait and Bahrain — 
patronizing the Washington hotel, possibly to the detriment of competitors and taxpayers. He wrote that Maryland and the District had sufficiently argued that Trump’s hotel “has had and almost certainly will continue to have an unlawful effect on competition.”

 As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.

Whole opinion is here.  https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/20180328-emoluments-pinion.pdf

Looks thorough enough. Will be interesting on appeal.

[Gil Bang 26,164]

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I watch her more than you think.  But like me sometime she's giving her real views and sometimes she's talking smack with a twinkle in her eye.  She's worth watching in the first case but not in the last.

You should learn how satellite works.

You should learn how humor works. 

[krutov 18]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You should try MSNBC during the day, specifically Nicole Wallace at 3PM.

She’s a Republican that worked in the GWB White House and usually has other conservatives on (not Trumpublicans).

For the legal stuff, The Beat with Ari Melber at 5PM is good

Chris Wallace and Joe Scarbrough blow goats

Chuck Todd is a tool

Maddow is hit or miss but when she hits, she really hits

Lawrence O’Donnell is annoying AF

 

when do you work?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I procrasturbate a lot and I have directTV in my office.

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

This weeks Bill Maher show on HBO was highly relevant.  His main guest was Jon Meacham, who analogizes this to the Civil War or other periods of unrest and seems to think we'll come out better for it.  His "panel" guests were Mike Hayden (ex-CIA/NSA director), Sally Kohn, and Matt Welch.  I thought Hayden's comments were astute and he tended to agree with Meacham.

 

I have never read Meacham, but have heard good things, and his new book sounds highly relevant. 

Joe Bob sez twist n shout, check it out.

Edited May 6, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46,755]

6 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Read what I said CAREFULLY.  Try.  Now take this quiz:  Who did I say doesn't get what I say?  A.  Everyone, or B. You.

I know who on this board can pass this quiz and who can't.

 

I'll give you the key phrase with a big hint to try to make it easy:

You can't even get my arguments straight 

Dearest Tahoe, you are full of shit.  What you think is true . . . isn't.  Fuck off.

[Mdhorn 6,148]

4 hours ago, krutov said:

 

when do you work?

Why does it matter?  It's not real difficult to use this sites tools if you don't wish to see posts.  

[Grade of D as in David 13,254]

On 5/4/2018 at 4:03 PM, TahoeHorn said:

But we can't say the Trump building is on fire.  I'm going to wait on film at eleven

If it's a Trump owned building, it's probably on fire. Baku Trump Tower a couple of weeks ago, and Trump Tower NY a couple of weeks before that.

 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,852]

7 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

If it's a Trump owned building, it's probably on fire. Baku Trump Tower a couple of weeks ago, and Trump Tower NY a couple of weeks before that.

 

 

And it probably doesn’t have sprinklers cuz fuck those people.    Oops sorry Kanye and those black ladies. 

[HenryJames 66,822]

 

[kevwun 16,094]

Gee, I wonder who that could be?

Edited May 6, 2018 by kevwun

[Biff Tannen 45,950]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This weeks Bill Maher show on HBO was highly relevant.  His main guest was Jon Meacham, who analogizes this to the Civil War or other periods of unrest and seems to think we'll come out better for it.  His "panel" guests were Mike Hayden (ex-CIA/NSA director), Sally Kohn, and Matt Welch.  I thought Hayden's comments were astute and he tended to agree with Meacham.

 

I have never read Meacham, but have heard good things, and his new book sounds highly relevant. 

Joe Bob sez twist n shout, check it out.

Yep.  He was on Meet the Press this morning too.  Smart dude.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[retread 2,951]

Curiously, after receiving the last two DOJ document dumps to the HPSCI, Nunes read neither of them? I think Gowdy read them for him, again.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by retread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, retread said:

Curiously, after receiving the last two DOJ document dumps to the HPSCI, Nunes read neither of them? I think Gowdy read them for him, again.

 

I suspect Nunes doesn’t have security clearance and he’s recused.

It’s the only explanation that makes sense.

[Tyler Durden 132]

Or he is an idiot 

[retread 2,951]

Love the selective recusals where you only look at information in which you're interested.

[Brisketexan 106,284]

Trump is going to be pissed when this judge doesn’t rule his way.

 

I was explaining this to my wife the other day; generally (not always, but generally), you shouldn’t predict how a judge is going to rule based on the subject or tone of the questions asked. I have had judges who raked me over the coals write a great opinion for me, and judges who tossed me softball questions pour me out.

 

The tough questions are often intended to force a lawyer to give a judge his best arguments in response to a likely attack from the other side. Other times, they indicate that the judge is genuinely hostile to your position and wants to make sure there’s no risk to him pouring you out. And it’s hard to tell the difference between those two scenarios.

 

This weeks Bill Maher show on HBO was highly relevant.  His main guest was Jon Meacham, who analogizes this to the Civil War or other periods of unrest and seems to think we'll come out better for it.  His "panel" guests were Mike Hayden (ex-CIA/NSA director), Sally Kohn, and Matt Welch.  I thought Hayden's comments were astute and he tended to agree with Meacham.

 

I have never read Meacham, but have heard good things, and his new book sounds highly relevant. 

Joe Bob sez twist n shout, check it out.

 

I guess I need to read this. I mean, you already know my take: the war’s over. Our soul lost.

 

I’d like to read something more optimistic.

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I was explaining this to my wife the other day; generally (not always, but generally), you shouldn’t predict how a judge is going to rule based on the subject or tone of the questions asked. I have had judges who raked me over the coals write a great opinion for me, and judges who tossed me softball questions pour me out.

 

The tough questions are often intended to force a lawyer to give a judge his best arguments in response to a likely attack from the other side. Other times, they indicate that the judge is genuinely hostile to your position and wants to make sure there’s no risk to him pouring you out. And it’s hard to tell the difference between those two scenarios.

 

 

 

I guess I need to read this. I mean, you already know my take: the war’s over. Our soul lost.

 

I’d like to read something more optimistic.

I was actually thinking of you when I posted that.  NTTAWT.

 

And so true about the judge.  I kind of missed out on the EDVa patent "rocket docket" craze before EDTx got huge, but some friends reminded me that this judge is kind of the John McBryde of the EDVa:  very irascible, liable to give anyone shit for anything, but unlike McBryde, doesn't seem to hold grudges or let his tirades affect his rulings.

Edited May 6, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2,664]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

From the above, the origin of DAG Rod Rosenstein's warning that the Justice Department "will not be extorted" is obvious.  The DoJ does not share information with Congress pertaining to ongoing investigations except in exceedingly rare circumstances.  However in this case, there is justifiable concern some GOP in Congress are attempting to obstruct justice in the Trump/Russia investigation through extortion - threatening contempt charges and impeachment of the DAG to further their attempts at obstruction.  

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Re Judge Ellis, this news from his grilling of Mueller prosecutors was easily missed:

"The judge asked the government to produce an unredacted copy of an August 2017 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller, which laid out in greater detail the matters that Mueller’s office was authorized to investigate. The majority of the memo, which was publicly filed, was redacted. Ellis said he wanted to see it — it would only be produced to him, not to the public or the defense — to determine if prosecutors were truthful in saying the rest of the document didn’t relate to Manafort.

Dreeben said he would need to consult with his office and the intelligence community. The judge gave the special counsel’s office two weeks to turn it over."