The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Biff Tannen 46063]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because the alternative of further isolating and radicalizing them through neglect simply because it’s uncomfortable and inconvenient to talk out our differences will have catastrophic consequences.

It's not uncomfortable or inconvenient.  It's impossible.  

[pyrohornIII 4845]

12 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Diabetes, heart disease, and COPD are going to do more to help us "heal" than anything we can try to do proactively. 

This

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's not uncomfortable or inconvenient.  It's impossible.  

Because of this.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

They should be completely written off and shunned from society. 

 

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't advocate coming together and healing.

You advocated the opposite which is what I was responding to.  

You are approaching this problem as something that can be solved through mobilization and voting.  I think that’s a shortsighted solution that merely looks to sweep a much bigger socio-political problem under the rug.  We’ve always approached the radicals by assuming we can marginalize them by out numbering them in elections to prevent their access to real power.  

This approach has worked for the most part but now the radicals have all the power and they’ve been normalized to the point where just voting their leaders out simply will not do because they will just come back more entrenched and dogmatic than before.  

If we refuse to see these people as fellow Americans in need of a better understanding then we are headed for some serious violence.  Elections aren’t going to fix that. 

[jimmyjazz 46984]

It might take violence.  Civil wars are not uncommon.

What you are proposing is the analog to a doctor telling an obese, sedentary patient who was just resuscitated from cardiac arrest to cut down on fatty foods, and exercise as opposed to taking them to the ER for a quadruple bypass.  Sometimes you just have to attack the symptoms first and then address the underlying problems once the patient is out of the ICU.

Right now, the United States is in the ICU on life support.   (No, I don't think I'm being overly dramatic.)

[Lagunamadre 1975]

55 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hearing a lot of chatter that something is going down tomorrow but if history is any indication, it means nothing is happening.

Out of curiosity. Where do you hear this chatter? Twitter? Friends? Can you share any tid bits?

[Chad Fuck 18093]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Out of curiosity. Where do you hear this chatter? Twitter? Friends? Can you share any tid bits?

Seconded.

 

[bad_teammate 13481]

We need to swing the Obama/Trump voters back. Not just for the win (which we need to do), but because it's the right thing to do.

Obviously the biggest gains are going to come from mobilizing the poor and working classes overall. The current non-voters in the sub-50k/yr range are enough to keep a supermajority if you get their voting rates up high.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

42 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's not uncomfortable or inconvenient.  It's impossible.  

No, it’s hard and it can’t be done overnight or even in a year.  They didn’t magically become Trump kool aid drinkers over night.  It was a process in which they were exposed to only one type of world view that pushed them into the tiny hands of Trump.  

The only way to defeat that is to expose them to alternative perspectives over and over again.   This can not be done by one person so it’s understandable why many feel helpless in the face of a hardcore Trumper relative.  

But it’s not impossible.  Even the most hardcore Nazis have been converted when given the right environment.  

However, the information environment needs to change first before fixing your crazy Qanon uncle. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 46984]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We need to swing the Obama/Trump voters back. Not just for the win (which we need to do), but because it's the right thing to do.

Those are probably the small percentage of Trump supporters who can be reached.  The question becomes "what is the most efficient allocation of resources"?

The truth is, it's not unusual for 8%-12% of voters to switch parties between primaries and general elections.  While it's true that Hillary would have won had those people (primarily Bernies) just stayed home in a few key states, it's just not that easy to target them.  I suspect part of this is because some people cross party lines to influence the opposition party's results in the primaries.  A "Dem" vote might not be a true Democrat (and vice versa).

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No, it’s hard and it can’t be done overnight or even in a year.  They didn’t magically become Trump kool aid drinkers over night.  It was a process in which they were exposed to only one type of world view that pushed them into the tiny hands of Trump.  

The only way to defeat that is to expose them to alternative perspectives over and over again.   This can not be done by one person so it’s understandable why many feel helpless if the face of a hardcore Trumper relative.  

But it’s not impossible.  Even the most hardcore Nazis have been converted when given the right environment.  

However, the information environment needs to change first before fixing your crazy Qanon uncle. 

Ok, so ban Fox News and Limbaugh to start.  And facebook.  And the internet in general. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Out of curiosity. Where do you hear this chatter? Twitter? Friends? Can you share any tid bits?

Twitter peeps I use for information sometimes. None of them I deem particularly credible on this so I’m not going to give them any oxygen here.

Just reporting that rumors are circulating.  Whether true or false a rumor can tell you something.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

John Brennan outright said it on MSNBC (I think) a couple of nights ago.

[shnsajax 3605]

Has Prime Policy Group been talked about a lot, or have I just glossed over it entirely? 

 

 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Twitter peeps I use for information sometimes. None of them I deem particularly credible on this so I’m not going to give them any oxygen here.

Just reporting that rumors are circulating.  Whether true or false a rumor can tell you something.

Gracias. I've seen a trend with those types to hedge almost every Wedn/Thursday that THIS Friday is going to be the day for months now. If nothing happens, nobody seems to remember. And then when it does they think they are the left's Q anon. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Lagunamadre

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, so ban Fox News and Limbaugh to start.  And facebook.  And the internet in general. 

Not ban, change.  We’re seeing efforts to do this now.  Fox is being boycotted by advertisers and their twitter accounts have been dormant for months.  The tech platforms are getting better at policing each other but there’s still a long way to go.   The bad actors and grifters need to be called out by our leaders and society in general. 

We can do this without a big government crackdown. 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not ban, change.  We’re seeing efforts to do this now.  Fox is being boycotted by advertisers and their twitter accounts have been dormant for months.  The tech platforms are getting better at policing each other but there’s still a long way to go.   The bad actors and grifters need to be called out by our leaders and society in general. 

We can do this without a big government crackdown. 

[RomaVicta 30507]

21 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Pretty sure I said well over  2 yrs ago on the Shag, RICO, not Russia is taking Dotard down.  Feeling very strongly about that right now.  

Yea? Well, I'm pretty sure I said it the day before you did. So there.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

'Something big might be coming down tomorrow. Or it might not.'

Way to stick your neck out. 

[triplehorn 2664]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, so ban Fox News and Limbaugh to start.  And facebook.  And the internet in general. 

If you redirect the nature and substance of information flow away from propaganda and manipulation, a whole lot will steer back without ever acknowledging how out of balance they got.

I think it starts with FoxNews, and there are numerous signs and associations that suggest it could have legal exposure in the Mueller investigation.

[Pescado_Rojo 19559]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

'Something big might be coming down tomorrow. Or it might not.'

Way to stick your neck out. 

$9.95

[Lagunamadre 1975]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

'Something big might be coming down tomorrow. Or it might not.'

Way to stick your neck out. 

I've heard from multiple sources that Melania has hired the best interior decorator in the Guantanamo Bay area. 

[RomaVicta 30507]

15 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

[bad_teammate 13481]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, so ban Fox News and Limbaugh to start.  And facebook.  And the internet in general. 

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but we absolutely need to reinstate and strengthen the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, we absolutely should tell social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Google/YouTube) that if their lack of editing and curation continues to give an outsized voice to bots, trolls, hate groups, and liars, they will literally be broken up or nationalized.

We cannot have a healthy society if our diet is poison.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but we absolutely need to reinstate and strengthen the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, we absolutely should tell social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Google/YouTube) that if their lack of editing and curation continues to give an outsized voice to bots, trolls, hate groups, and liars, they will literally be broken up or nationalized.

We cannot have a healthy society if our diet is poison.

Agree with all of this.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

29 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Yea? Well, I'm pretty sure I said it the day before you did. So there.

Oh I was about 7th.  Very very proud of that.  Nobody can ever take that away from me (and you).  

The best predictions.  

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but we absolutely need to reinstate and strengthen the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, we absolutely should tell social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Google/YouTube) that if their lack of editing and curation continues to give an outsized voice to bots, trolls, hate groups, and liars, they will literally be broken up or nationalized.

We cannot have a healthy society if our diet is poison.

See, this is some socialism I can 100% get behind.  If other countries regulate social media and we allow even their trolls to seed our brains here, the long term outcomes are not gonna be pretty.  

Hell, the short term outcomes are pretty damn ugly.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but we absolutely need to reinstate and strengthen the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, we absolutely should tell social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Google/YouTube) that if their lack of editing and curation continues to give an outsized voice to bots, trolls, hate groups, and liars, they will literally be broken up or nationalized.

We cannot have a healthy society if our diet is poison.

Doesn't that do the opposite?  Nationalize something so that the government can better monitor the content?  Bad news inside:  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, it won't.  What will lead to catastrophic consequences is not doing every single thing possible to vote Trump and his boot-lickers out of office.

It is fundamentally impossible to sway more than a tiny minority of Trump supporters by November 2020.  It's wasted breath.  It's a horrible strategy.  

I do believe in the principles on which this country was founded, and I wouldn't advocate even the slightest legal marginalization of these people once the left has wrested control away from traitors.  They have rights.  They also have responsibilities and they have abdicated those responsibilities.  Our job is to overwhelm them at the polls, not to waste a fucking moment or a fucking dollar on "educating" them.  It simply can't be done.  It's the absolute worst possible strategy one could imagine.  I'm not surprised that some would think it a good idea, because lots of people can't even think their way through a game of checkers, but for goodness' sake, consider what you're proposing.

I don’t think our strategies are mutually exclusive.  I agree we should do everything in the short term to oust Trump and the GOP from power.  We shouldn’t attempt to pander for the Trumper votes. 

However, how we approach Trump supporters in our daily lives shouldn’t be met with the same dismissal and scorn.  They are usually the ones to bring up politics first and when they do we shouldn’t just let their hateful and misinformed rhetoric go unchallenged.  This is the hardest part because it’s uncomfortable and will have consequences but if you remain silent you’re part of the problem.  JMO. 

[TwiceHorn 31994]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t think our strategies are mutually exclusive.  I agree we should do everything in the short term to oust Trump and the GOP from power.  We shouldn’t attempt to pander for the Trumper votes. 

However, how we approach Trump supporters in our daily lives shouldn’t be met with the same dismissal and scorn.  They are usually the ones to bring up politics first and when they do we shouldn’t just let their hateful and misinformed rhetoric go unchallenged.  This is the hardest part because it’s uncomfortable and will have consequences but if you remain silent you’re part of the problem.  JMO. 

Yep, not giving these people any kind of voice other than to call them deplorable and talking about their guns and religion is a big reason we're in this fix.  There's a larger sociological issue pertaining to education and opportunity, as well, but I think simply giving these people the dignity of a debate a decade or two ago (when actual debate was possible) would have avoided a lot of this.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20839]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, it won't.  What will lead to catastrophic consequences is not doing every single thing possible to vote Trump and his boot-lickers out of office.

It is fundamentally impossible to sway more than a tiny minority of Trump supporters by November 2020.  It's wasted breath.  It's a horrible strategy.  

I do believe in the principles on which this country was founded, and I wouldn't advocate even the slightest legal marginalization of these people once the left has wrested control away from traitors.  They have rights.  They also have responsibilities and they have abdicated those responsibilities.  Our job is to overwhelm them at the polls, not to waste a fucking moment or a fucking dollar on "educating" them.  It simply can't be done.  It's the absolute worst possible strategy one could imagine.  I'm not surprised that some would think it a good idea, because lots of people can't even think their way through a game of checkers, but for goodness' sake, consider what you're proposing.

Could we just put them on the ice floes, like the Eskimos do with the elderly who can't pull their own weight?

[triplehorn 2664]

9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Doesn't that do the opposite?  Nationalize something so that the government can better monitor the content?  Bad news inside:  

 

  Hide contents

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but First Amendment protections don't apply to foreign actors or agents of foreign pricipals the same way.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

Some may find this interesting.  https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2019/03/any-bold-predictions-for-paul-manaforts-first-sentencing-hearing.html

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Doesn't that do the opposite?  Nationalize something so that the government can better monitor the content?  Bad news inside:

If simply pointing to the 1st Amendment and saying, "You can't do that" wsa a convincing (or even useful) argument then we would have zero laws regarding speech, broadcast, and media content. ABC would be playing hardcore pornography in prime time. Radio stations would be swearing and dropping n-bombs left and right.

 

[jimmyjazz 46984]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but we absolutely need to reinstate and strengthen the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, we absolutely should tell social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Google/YouTube) that if their lack of editing and curation continues to give an outsized voice to bots, trolls, hate groups, and liars, they will literally be broken up or nationalized.

We cannot have a healthy society if our diet is poison.

That is very well put.  I agree.  I don't think much of our society agrees with or understands the Fairness Doctrine, because they've been conditioned to the Wild West, but it really does create fertile grounds for voter manipulation.  The pushback will (of course) be "evil lib media trying to control everything!"

[jimmyjazz 46984]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, not giving these people any kind of voice other than to call them deplorable and talking about their guns and religion is a big reason we're in this fix.  There's a larger sociological issue pertaining to education and opportunity, as well, but I think simply giving these people the dignity of a debate a decade or two ago (when actual debate was possible) would have avoided a lot of this.

There is a difference between ignoring the entrenched, unreachable voter of middle age or older and making a concerted, truthful effort to educate our youth about Civics (hey, what happened to Civics?) and history.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

5 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Could we just put them on the ice floes, like the Eskimos do with the elderly who can't pull their own weight?

What if their stupidity has melted all the ice floes?

[bad_teammate 13481]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That is very well put.  I agree.  I don't think much of our society agrees with or understands the Fairness Doctrine, because they've been conditioned to the Wild West, but it really does create fertile grounds for voter manipulation.  The pushback will (of course) be "evil lib media trying to control everything!"

That's how we let them beat us in the Reagan Revolution, and we need to fight back. We need the Democrats to actually be on the side of the people. It is absolutely absurd that we grant FCC licenses to propaganda outlets.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, not giving these people any kind of voice other than to call them deplorable and talking about their guns and religion is a big reason we're in this fix.  There's a larger sociological issue pertaining to education and opportunity, as well, but I think simply giving these people the dignity of a debate a decade or two ago (when actual debate was possible) would have avoided a lot of this.

It's hard to debate when one side doesn't believe objective facts.

[SquishMitten 10493]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t think our strategies are mutually exclusive.  I agree we should do everything in the short term to oust Trump and the GOP from power.  We shouldn’t attempt to pander for the Trumper votes. 

However, how we approach Trump supporters in our daily lives shouldn’t be met with the same dismissal and scorn.  They are usually the ones to bring up politics first and when they do we shouldn’t just let their hateful and misinformed rhetoric go unchallenged.  This is the hardest part because it’s uncomfortable and will have consequences but if you remain silent you’re part of the problem.  JMO. 

I've said it before, but its actually quite entertaining to talk to these folks. Engage them for more than a few minutes and they will run out of talking points. Then you can get them to completely contradict themselves using a very minimal amount of logic. Watching their brain fart all over itself is one of life's finer things. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), they stop bringing it up after you've beaten them down a few times.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's hard to debate when one side doesn't believe objective facts.

I usually just ask them questions and watch them tie themselves in knots trying to explain their hypocrisy.  The #1 thing they turn to is deflecting and whataboutism.  I try to overcome that by saying we can talk about that later but let’s get back you what you believe and why you believe it because that’s what is really important, don’t you agree? 

 Sometimes I get the lightbulb to pop on but not often. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SquishMitten 10493]

My all time favorite was "going into bankruptcy means you are a smart business person." He doesn't speak to me anymore. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

“I’ll never vote for a democrat again.”

What if Trump was a democrat?

”Well, yes I’d vote for him.”

But you just said you’d never vote for a democrat again?  

Head explodes

[BrickHorn 18426]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If simply pointing to the 1st Amendment and saying, "You can't do that" wsa a convincing (or even useful) argument then we would have zero laws regarding speech, broadcast, and media content. ABC would be playing hardcore pornography in prime time. Radio stations would be swearing and dropping n-bombs left and right.

 

What you’re advocating is censoring for political content, perhaps the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment.  

Censoring propaganda is not the solution.  We need to better educate our citizens to develop an intellectual herd immunity to bullshit claims.  Unfortunately, thanks to the Right’s decades-long assault on quality public education, Anerican society is plagued with nincompoops who lack the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the river of lies on places like Facebook and Twitter.  THAT is the problem.  It won’t be solved by paternalistic oversight.  It requires a long-term dedication to educate Americans on objective science, logic, and history.  

Edited March 7, 2019 by BrickHorn

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

What you’re advocating is censoring for political content, perhaps the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment. 

The American people own the airwaves and grant it on license to media outlets. If hate-mongers and liars and propaganda outlets want to communicate their speech in a way that doesn't use the property and resources of the taxpayer, that's fine. However, we should be under no obligation to grant FCC broadcast licenses to hate-mongers, liars, and propaganda outlets.

And furthermore, hate speech, lies, demagoguery, and propaganda are not "the most protected form of speech".

Quote

We need to better educate our citizens to develop an intellectual herd immunity to bullshit claims.

We cannot do this when our decision makers and the people that vote for them are raised on a diet of unregulated hate and propaganda. Since the removal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 we have been on a rocketsled downward in terms of media quality and utility.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The American people own the airwaves and grant it on license to media outlets. If hate-mongers and liars and propaganda outlets want to communicate their speech in a way that doesn't use the property and resources of the taxpayer, that's fine. However, we should be under no obligation to grant FCC broadcast licenses to hate-mongers, liars, and propaganda outlets.

And furthermore, hate speech, lies, demagoguery, and propaganda are not "the most protected form of speech".

We cannot do this when our decision makers and the people that vote for them are raised on a diet of unregulated hate and propaganda. Since the removal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 we have been on a rocketsled downward in terms of media quality and utility.

You don't know what you're talking about.  Read up on content based restrictions and the differences between regulation of broadcast media and the internet.  (you've also somehow blended internet at the beginning with broadcast now).  A good place to start is Reno v ACLU.

[triplehorn 2664]

This morning's ABC News article is creepy as hell, reporting that oozes with corrupt mob tactics.  This piggy backs with what Emily Fox (Cohen insider) reported last night about Cohen's closed meeting with House Intel yesterday:

Lawyers claiming ties to Rudy Giuliani approached Michael Cohen after FBI raids; investigators looking at contacts

 

You have to read the article to get the flow, but some choice bits:
 

Quote

 

"In the weeks following the federal raids on former Michael Cohen's law office and residences last April, President Donald Trump's former lawyer and confidant was contacted by two New York attorneys who claimed to be in close contact with Rudy Giuliani, the current personal attorney to Trump, according to sources with direct knowledge of the discussions.

[...]

The sources familiar with the contacts said the two lawyers first reached out to Cohen late in April of last year and that the discussions continued for about two months. The attorneys, who have no known formal ties to the White House, urged Cohen not to leave the joint defense agreement, the sources told ABC News, and also offered a Plan B. In the event Cohen opted to exit the agreement, they could join his legal team and act as a conduit between Cohen and the president's lawyers.

At one point in the discussions, one of the attorneys sent Cohen a phone screenshot to prove they were in touch with Giuliani, the sources said.

[...]

Investigators have been looking into whether these communications were intended to influence Cohen, a potential witness against the president, or to implicitly dangle a potential pardon in front of Cohen, the sources said. It's unclear if prosecutors regard the contacts as illegal or improper.

[...]

The sources tell ABC News that during the multiple conversations between Cohen and the attorneys, there was no explicit discussion or offer of a presidential pardon for Cohen. But the sources said there was an implicit message that if Cohen hired these lawyers, it could preserve or increase his chances of a pardon down the road, the sources said.

While emphasizing that he was speaking generally, and not in response to any specific allegation, Giuliani told ABC News that any lawyer that has raised to him the issue of a possible pardon has been told the same thing.

"It has always been squelched immediately," Giuliani said.

"We have unequivocally always said only one thing, and anything else would be entirely false. We have said the president is not going to issue any pardons and is not considering any pardons at this time," he added.

[...]

As it became clear that Cohen would commit to Petrillo, the attorneys asked Cohen to consider bringing them on board as well, because their purported relationship with Giuliani could serve to keep lines of communication open with President Trump's legal team. Petrillo apparently opposed the idea of working in tandem, and Cohen ultimately rejected it, the sources said. The two attorneys never formally joined Cohen's legal team but sent Cohen a bill for legal services, which he did not pay, the sources said.

[...]

The Southern District of New York prosecutors are now in possession of the legal bill along with logs of numerous calls and copies of emails between the attorneys and Cohen, the sources said. During a meeting with Cohen earlier this year, federal prosecutors in New York expressed interest in learning who paid the bill. Cohen said he did not know who, if anyone, did."

 

 

 

 

Realize that in the above article, the attention is on the Trump/Giuliani linked attorneys reaching out to Cohen.  But keep in mind there is another atty referenced in the article who is likely serving the SAME purpose, Lanny Davis, but for clients not named Trump/Rudy.  This was talked about on this thread a few pages back, that Cohen remains an un-cooperating witness.  That means despite his notable cooperation around some things (POTUS/Trump Org), he's NOT cooperating around a lot of other stuff. 

Enter Lanny Davis, who is acting as an advisor "for free", not a paid formal legal counsel.  It follows:

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by triplehorn

[bad_teammate 13481]

42 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

You don't know what you're talking about.  Read up on content based restrictions and the differences between regulation of broadcast media and the internet.  (you've also somehow blended internet at the beginning with broadcast now).  A good place to start is Reno v ACLU.

Content-based restrictions are part of regulation of broadcast media and the Internet, not separate issues. The point is simple, just saying "uhh the 1st Amendment!" is neither a compelling nor interesting argument.

The Fairness Doctrine withstood Constitutional challenges based on 1st Amendment objections already, so to oppose its reinstatement by simply quoting the 1st Amendment is asinine and terrible argumentation.

Furthermore, it was formulated in 1949, so of course it doesn't talk about the Internet and you did not bother even attempting to state a reason as to why the Internet should be held in different standing. The Internet, like broadcast media, requires access to the taxpayer's airwaves and physical land and, because of this, is subject to the taxpayer's jurisdiction and reasonable scrutiny.

[triplehorn 2664]

Ted talks:

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

This morning's ABC News article is creepy as hell, reporting that oozes with corrupt mob tactics.  This piggy backs with what Emily Fox (Cohen insider) reported last night about Cohen's closed meeting with House Intel yesterday:

Lawyers claiming ties to Rudy Giuliani approached Michael Cohen after FBI raids; investigators looking at contacts

 

You have to read the article to get the flow, but some choice bits:
 

Realize that in the above article, the attention is on the Trump/Giuliani linked attorneys reaching out to Cohen.  But keep in mind there is another atty referenced in the article who is likely serving the SAME purpose, Lanny Davis, but for clients not named Trump/Rudy.  This was talked about on this thread a few pages back, that Cohen remains an un-cooperating witness.  That means despite his notable cooperation around some things (POTUS/Trump Org), he's NOT cooperating around a lot of other stuff. 

Enter Lanny Davis, who is acting as an advisor "for free", not a paid formal legal counsel.  It follows:

 

 

The only thing I can make of this shit is Giuliani is probably lying and Trump likely dangled a pardon instead of Cohen seeking one out.  

Giuliani and Trump are trying to preemptively flip the script on Cohen because they are playing political warfare where the only thing that matters is public perception.

The possible Lanny Davis/Firtash/Mogelevich angle isn’t really doing it for me because the worst case scenario is what?  Cohen is protecting some Russian mafia guys?  Okay, I feel pretty good Mueller and company don’t need anything Cohen could give them to go barking up that tree.

[BrickHorn 18426]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Content-based restrictions are part of regulation of broadcast media and the Internet, not separate issues. The point is simple, just saying "uhh the 1st Amendment!" is neither a compelling nor interesting argument.

The Fairness Doctrine withstood Constitutional challenges based on 1st Amendment objections already, so to oppose its reinstatement by simply quoting the 1st Amendment is asinine and terrible argumentation.

Furthermore, it was formulated in 1949, so of course it doesn't talk about the Internet and you did not bother even attempting to state a reason as to why the Internet should be held in different standing. The Internet, like broadcast media, requires access to the taxpayer's airwaves and physical land and, because of this, is subject to the taxpayer's jurisdiction and reasonable scrutiny.

The Internet is not a limited resource the way broadcast television is (or at least was).  Indeed, that is the problem.  There’s TOO MUCH content on the Internet.  

In any event, the Fairness Doctrine was about allowing (not censoring) speech. It requires that broadcasters offer the other side of a controversial topic “a reasonable opportunity” to respond.  It did not require censoring the proponent of a controversial, incorrect, or dangerous idea.  Which is, I believe, what you are proposing.

Edited March 7, 2019 by BrickHorn