|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 13 2017 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 01:54 Lmui wrote:Up here in Vancouver which is currently an incredibly expensive place to live thanks to the influx of foreign money, this is what the city is doing to ensure affordability: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-approves-20-64-living-wage-for-all-staff-1.3083830We're pretty closely aligned culturally to Portland, so this is something which Portland could do as well. There's a lot of employers which pay between minimum wage and living wages. About 5 years back, when I was a student, I worked as a cashier at Home Depot. It paid pretty well when I started ($8 min wage, $10 hourly) but by the time I left, I was making $10.50 I think when the min. wage got raised up to $10. Tracking the amount of people who're making anything from min-wage to min-wage +$2 would be good in order to get a reference for how many people are "stuck" at a below-poverty line wage. Portland is really against living wage because people like to demonize "burger flippers". We are really bad about needing to look down on other people in order to feel good about ourselves. What happened to the quite dignity of going to work every day and just making your way through the world? Apparently Portland lives up to most of the expectations the TV show set for it. They call themselves far left leaning, but then demonize working people. Sigh. I wouldn't say it is any worse than anywhere else. All over the country, people making $15-$20/hour feel threatened by the idea that someone working in fast food would make as much as them.
however the PNW (present company excluded) do a good job of pretending they're better than the rest of the country. 
|
To be fair, people are willing to work for relatively bad wages to reap the convenience of living in the city. They need the city more than the city needs them, so wages can be pushed below what we consider livable standards.
Relocating to areas with more affordable economies is much lower than the decades long gone that we like to compare our living standards to, and that is a conscious choice people are making that results in them having less relative wealth.
|
On June 13 2017 02:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 01:54 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 13 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Trump’s private lawyer Marc Kasowitz has advised White House staffers—who are not his clients—not to retain their own lawyers, according to the New York Times. Kasowitz has also reportedly broken the long-standing protocol that presidents’ private attorneys operate through the White House Counsel’s office and don’t engage directly with other government employees whom they do not represent. These guidelines exist to make sure the staffers understand their rights and do not feel pressured to cooperate with their bosses’ private counsel. Kasowitz’s spokesperson told the Times these claims are “inaccurate” but refused to comment further.
As former White House attorneys have explained to TPM, Kasowitz is tasked with defending Trump personally, a job that inevitably conflicts with what is best for the White House as an institution.
But if Kasowitz did indeed tell White House staff not to retain their own lawyers, that presents additional problems. Those staffers may be interviewed in the coming months by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, possible collusion with the Trump campaign, and any administration attempts to quash the federal inquiries.
Former White House counsel Robert Bauer warned that Kasowitz’s conversations “could be interpreted as an act of obstruction, a means of dissuading the witnesses from cooperating in the investigation.”
Telling the staffers not to retain their own counsel is also to Kasowitz’s advantage, making it easier for him to interview them as he builds his defense for Trump without having to go through a pack of lawyers each time. Source I work at a low power law firm that does a lot of meat and potatoes legal work. Nothing crazy. My first day I was told to never ever tell anyone they do not need or should not get their own lawyer. What is that man doing in the White House? Why is he talking to staffers? I highly doubt that whatever Kasowitz said is being reported accurately by the NYT. Considering his inexperience in this area of law, I wouldn't be surprised. Several outsets are also reporting he wants to set up an office within the White House. If he did that, he would be interacting with potential witnesses on a daily basis. And if any of the staff hired an attorney, he and his staff wouldn't be allowed to speak with them at all. The man is out of his league. How is he inexperienced in this area of law and out of his league? He's a high-powered litigator. He knows all of this stuff. Given the above and the less than pristine record of media outlets reporting this stuff, I think that the simplest explanation is that the reporting is wrong.
He is a high powered litigators in the business field. Not criminal law and not goverment institutions. I know what happened when lawyers dive head long into an field they have not practiced. And to be frank, I am going to take the credibility of the NYT over Trump and his attorney. And all of the lawyers quoted in the piece too, all whom equally credentialed.
On June 13 2017 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 01:54 Lmui wrote:Up here in Vancouver which is currently an incredibly expensive place to live thanks to the influx of foreign money, this is what the city is doing to ensure affordability: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-approves-20-64-living-wage-for-all-staff-1.3083830We're pretty closely aligned culturally to Portland, so this is something which Portland could do as well. There's a lot of employers which pay between minimum wage and living wages. About 5 years back, when I was a student, I worked as a cashier at Home Depot. It paid pretty well when I started ($8 min wage, $10 hourly) but by the time I left, I was making $10.50 I think when the min. wage got raised up to $10. Tracking the amount of people who're making anything from min-wage to min-wage +$2 would be good in order to get a reference for how many people are "stuck" at a below-poverty line wage. Portland is really against living wage because people like to demonize "burger flippers". We are really bad about needing to look down on other people in order to feel good about ourselves. What happened to the quite dignity of going to work every day and just making your way through the world? Apparently Portland lives up to most of the expectations the TV show set for it. They call themselves far left leaning, but then demonize working people. Sigh. I wouldn't say it is any worse than anywhere else. All over the country, people making $15-$20/hour feel threatened by the idea that someone working in fast food would make as much as them.
I live in the of those bastions of "liberal" thinking and policy. It is the same shit. People are all about left leaning ideas right up until someone picking up garbage might be paid $25 an hour(Boston wages).
|
speaking of top legal minds
The U.S. government has asked the Supreme Court to step in and make a ruling on the revised travel ban. The 9th Circuit’s decision is the latest legal loss for President Trump’s travel ban, which tried to temporarily shut down the U.S. refugee program and suspend the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries.
WaPo
|
Any chance Trump just fires deputy AG and Mueller? I think this move while politically unpopular could save him from impeachment down the line.
|
On June 13 2017 02:22 biology]major wrote:
Any chance Trump just fires deputy AG and Mueller? I think this move while politically unpopular could save him from impeachment down the line.
it wouldn't be a good idea to go full watergate, but i wouldn't put it past trump to conduct his very own version of the saturday night massacre
|
On June 13 2017 02:22 biology]major wrote:
Any chance Trump just fires deputy AG and Mueller? I think this move while politically unpopular could save him from impeachment down the line.
Am I missing something? Because adding to the fire he started by firing the person investigating him sounds like an awful idea.
|
On June 13 2017 02:22 biology]major wrote:
Any chance Trump just fires deputy AG and Mueller? I think this move while politically unpopular could save him from impeachment down the line.
I wouldn't put it past trump; not sure it'd help him though. Mueller's reputation is buying trump time; otherwise the heat would be on him even more. Firing Mueller would risk a very severe and immediate backlash.
|
Since there's no statute on point any longer, the circumstances under which a special prosecutor can be fired are unclear, though the existing DoJ regulation suggests that some kind of good cause is required.
|
On June 13 2017 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 13 2017 01:54 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 13 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Trump’s private lawyer Marc Kasowitz has advised White House staffers—who are not his clients—not to retain their own lawyers, according to the New York Times. Kasowitz has also reportedly broken the long-standing protocol that presidents’ private attorneys operate through the White House Counsel’s office and don’t engage directly with other government employees whom they do not represent. These guidelines exist to make sure the staffers understand their rights and do not feel pressured to cooperate with their bosses’ private counsel. Kasowitz’s spokesperson told the Times these claims are “inaccurate” but refused to comment further.
As former White House attorneys have explained to TPM, Kasowitz is tasked with defending Trump personally, a job that inevitably conflicts with what is best for the White House as an institution.
But if Kasowitz did indeed tell White House staff not to retain their own lawyers, that presents additional problems. Those staffers may be interviewed in the coming months by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, possible collusion with the Trump campaign, and any administration attempts to quash the federal inquiries.
Former White House counsel Robert Bauer warned that Kasowitz’s conversations “could be interpreted as an act of obstruction, a means of dissuading the witnesses from cooperating in the investigation.”
Telling the staffers not to retain their own counsel is also to Kasowitz’s advantage, making it easier for him to interview them as he builds his defense for Trump without having to go through a pack of lawyers each time. Source I work at a low power law firm that does a lot of meat and potatoes legal work. Nothing crazy. My first day I was told to never ever tell anyone they do not need or should not get their own lawyer. What is that man doing in the White House? Why is he talking to staffers? I highly doubt that whatever Kasowitz said is being reported accurately by the NYT. Considering his inexperience in this area of law, I wouldn't be surprised. Several outsets are also reporting he wants to set up an office within the White House. If he did that, he would be interacting with potential witnesses on a daily basis. And if any of the staff hired an attorney, he and his staff wouldn't be allowed to speak with them at all. The man is out of his league. How is he inexperienced in this area of law and out of his league? He's a high-powered litigator. He knows all of this stuff. Given the above and the less than pristine record of media outlets reporting this stuff, I think that the simplest explanation is that the reporting is wrong. He is a high powered litigators in the business field. Not criminal law and not goverment institutions. I know what happened when lawyers dive head long into an field they have not practiced. And to be frank, I am going to take the credibility of the NYT over Trump and his attorney. And all of the lawyers quoted in the piece too, all whom equally credentialed.
The ethical rules that are at issue here apply equally to civil and criminal litigators. That he may do predominantly civil work is irrelevant. Both types of lawyers should know what their obligations are. And what the other lawyers say in the piece doesn't really matter either because they don't know any more about the key factual issue than the NYT does: what Kasowitz actually told staffers. Attorney advisements are never one-liners. I have no doubt that there's a lot more that he said that is not being reported.
|
I remember watching a video a few years back about a portion of London that got gentrified, but then nobody wanted to move into the area. So all the people that got priced out of their own neighborhood just came back and squatted in the McMansions. I'd love to hear the outrage if something like that happened here.
|
I dunno. Kasowitz didn't proofread his official press statement after letting Trump reshuffle it and also submitted a very unusual request to the Justice Department that Comey's releasing the memos to the press should be investigated as illegal. This is all concrete stuff that clearly illustrates at the bare minimum some frazzling and little experience with this area of law.
He's also the guy that threatened to the sue the NYT over publishing the sexual assault allegations and totally ran away with his tail between his legs.
|
United States41117 Posts
|
On June 13 2017 02:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 02:15 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 13 2017 01:54 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 13 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2017 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Trump’s private lawyer Marc Kasowitz has advised White House staffers—who are not his clients—not to retain their own lawyers, according to the New York Times. Kasowitz has also reportedly broken the long-standing protocol that presidents’ private attorneys operate through the White House Counsel’s office and don’t engage directly with other government employees whom they do not represent. These guidelines exist to make sure the staffers understand their rights and do not feel pressured to cooperate with their bosses’ private counsel. Kasowitz’s spokesperson told the Times these claims are “inaccurate” but refused to comment further.
As former White House attorneys have explained to TPM, Kasowitz is tasked with defending Trump personally, a job that inevitably conflicts with what is best for the White House as an institution.
But if Kasowitz did indeed tell White House staff not to retain their own lawyers, that presents additional problems. Those staffers may be interviewed in the coming months by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, possible collusion with the Trump campaign, and any administration attempts to quash the federal inquiries.
Former White House counsel Robert Bauer warned that Kasowitz’s conversations “could be interpreted as an act of obstruction, a means of dissuading the witnesses from cooperating in the investigation.”
Telling the staffers not to retain their own counsel is also to Kasowitz’s advantage, making it easier for him to interview them as he builds his defense for Trump without having to go through a pack of lawyers each time. Source I work at a low power law firm that does a lot of meat and potatoes legal work. Nothing crazy. My first day I was told to never ever tell anyone they do not need or should not get their own lawyer. What is that man doing in the White House? Why is he talking to staffers? I highly doubt that whatever Kasowitz said is being reported accurately by the NYT. Considering his inexperience in this area of law, I wouldn't be surprised. Several outsets are also reporting he wants to set up an office within the White House. If he did that, he would be interacting with potential witnesses on a daily basis. And if any of the staff hired an attorney, he and his staff wouldn't be allowed to speak with them at all. The man is out of his league. How is he inexperienced in this area of law and out of his league? He's a high-powered litigator. He knows all of this stuff. Given the above and the less than pristine record of media outlets reporting this stuff, I think that the simplest explanation is that the reporting is wrong. He is a high powered litigators in the business field. Not criminal law and not goverment institutions. I know what happened when lawyers dive head long into an field they have not practiced. And to be frank, I am going to take the credibility of the NYT over Trump and his attorney. And all of the lawyers quoted in the piece too, all whom equally credentialed. The ethical rules that are at issue here apply equally to civil and criminal litigators. That he may do predominantly civil work is irrelevant. Both types of lawyers should know what their obligations are. And what the other lawyers say in the piece doesn't really matter either because they don't know any more about the key factual issue than the NYT does: what Kasowitz actually told staffers. Attorney advisements are never one-liners. I have no doubt that there's a lot more that he said that is not being reported.
I understand everything you are saying. This simply comes down a difference of who each of us trust more, the NYT reporters or Trump’s counsel to act as a responsible, ethical attorney. Which is fine, you have always expressed a pretty low opinion of the NYT's reporting.
|
On June 13 2017 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 01:54 Lmui wrote:Up here in Vancouver which is currently an incredibly expensive place to live thanks to the influx of foreign money, this is what the city is doing to ensure affordability: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-approves-20-64-living-wage-for-all-staff-1.3083830We're pretty closely aligned culturally to Portland, so this is something which Portland could do as well. There's a lot of employers which pay between minimum wage and living wages. About 5 years back, when I was a student, I worked as a cashier at Home Depot. It paid pretty well when I started ($8 min wage, $10 hourly) but by the time I left, I was making $10.50 I think when the min. wage got raised up to $10. Tracking the amount of people who're making anything from min-wage to min-wage +$2 would be good in order to get a reference for how many people are "stuck" at a below-poverty line wage. Portland is really against living wage because people like to demonize "burger flippers". We are really bad about needing to look down on other people in order to feel good about ourselves.
Amen.
|
On June 13 2017 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:I dunno. Kasowitz didn't proofread his official press statement after letting Trump reshuffle it and also submitted a very unusual request to the Justice Department that Comey's releasing the memos to the press should be investigated as illegal. This is all concrete stuff that clearly illustrates at the bare minimum some frazzling and little experience with this area of law.
Like I've already said, this issue has nothing to do with whether Kasowitz has practiced in criminal or governmental law. The issue is one of attorney ethics, which apply universally to all attorneys. For this reason, I know what the rules are even though I don't have a criminal law practice.
Also, take another look at the TPM article and the NYT article. Here's what the NYT article says:
He told aides gathered in one meeting who had asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers that it was not yet necessary, according to another person with direct knowledge.
And here's what TPM says:
President Trump’s private lawyer Marc Kasowitz has advised White House staffers—who are not his clients—not to retain their own lawyers, according to the New York Times.
As an attorney, I'll tell you that those are two very, very different statements. This looks like TPM creating fake news to me.
|
On June 13 2017 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:I dunno. Kasowitz didn't proofread his official press statement after letting Trump reshuffle it and also submitted a very unusual request to the Justice Department that Comey's releasing the memos to the press should be investigated as illegal. This is all concrete stuff that clearly illustrates at the bare minimum some frazzling and little experience with this area of law. He's also the guy that threatened to the sue the NYT over publishing the sexual assault allegations and totally ran away with his tail between his legs.
pretty sure kasowitz will just file whatever trump tells him to file and say whatever trump tells him to say. it may not be legal best practice, but he knows where the money is coming from and how to keep it coming.
|
It's the only way the manchild will be able to actually get anything done, has to puff himself up first.
|
On June 13 2017 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:I dunno. Kasowitz didn't proofread his official press statement after letting Trump reshuffle it and also submitted a very unusual request to the Justice Department that Comey's releasing the memos to the press should be investigated as illegal. This is all concrete stuff that clearly illustrates at the bare minimum some frazzling and little experience with this area of law. He's also the guy that threatened to the sue the NYT over publishing the sexual assault allegations and totally ran away with his tail between his legs. pretty sure kasowitz will just file whatever trump tells him to file and say whatever trump tells him to say. it may not be legal best practice, but he knows where the money is coming from and how to keep it coming.
Attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate the interests of their clients. Whether an attorney loses or wins a case, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the quality of the attorney.
On June 13 2017 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Does Kasowitz have much to lose by just doing what Trump tells him to do? So long as he is never blamed for things going wrong, seems like a good way to be incredibly wealthy.
Exactly.
|
Does Kasowitz have much to lose by just doing what Trump tells him to do? So long as he is never blamed for things going wrong, seems like a good way to be incredibly wealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
