|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Interesting. I’m sure he will provide a much need direction to the President’s team. Thought I am not convinced if he will able to limit the scope of the investigation at this point. I bet his role is going to be working out how the interview with Trump will work. Because that has to be coming and it isn’t something Trump can dodge.
|
On May 03 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:
Interesting. I’m sure he will provide a much need direction to the President’s team. Thought I am not convinced if he will able to limit the scope of the investigation at this point. I bet his role is going to be working out how the interview with Trump will work. Because that has to be coming and it isn’t something Trump can dodge.
Best I can tell on the interview is that he could probably drag it out till too close to the election where the SC would decide to leave it to the people. That's mostly just speculation put together by random legal folks, but also best I can tell, no one can know for sure how it would go down or how long it would take if he refused until compelled (if he can be, though most think he can from what I've read).
|
On May 03 2018 06:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 05:28 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2018 05:12 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
It is a dangerous job for sure. But I also have to deal with random people reaching for cell phones every day and do not fear for my personal safety the overwhelming majority of the time. They are also empowered to use lethal force and enjoy the presumption that they were justified in using it. Both things the average citizen and my brother serving in Iraq and Afghanistan did not enjoy. Our troops in war zones are not allowed to return fire unless ordered to, for fear they may target the wrong people or their own troops. They are held to a higher standard than 6 police officers responded to a call at a mall Starbucks and far more likely to be convicted if they misuse lethal force. There is something deeply wrong with how the justice system and the American public view the use of lethal force by police.
Also, nationally police are reluctant to provide data on how often they use lethal or non-lethal force. As a nation we do not collect that data. I would not be surprised if we have more information about the performance of fire departments at a national level. Police department and police unions don’t want to report what they are doing to anyone, including the state and local governments they serve. Edit: Not well enough thought out to have a great response. Was not trying to argue, just point out that it is not always simple. I don’t disagree. I am someone who was “pro-police” about years ago. I had a lot of faith in the judicial system to deal with unlawful uses of lethal force. I followed a lot of the cases of unarmed shootings by police over the last 5 or so year. Needless to say, my faith in the system, police training and police themselves has been completely eroded. I consider the current trajectory of law enforcement on a national level to be a real threat to civil liberates and faith in our governmental systems. Police departments need to get with the times and realize smart phone cameras are not going away. Pandora’s box is open. As smart guy named Austin Walker once said “Its(police) always been like this for black folk, we just have video now.” Public faith will continue to erode unless police realize that reform is their only salvation. Another 10 years of unarmed shootings with zero convictions is going to lead to of angry people who will decide that the best response to unchecked unarmed shootings and police abuse is to burn down the police station. I do support strong oversight of police departments at a federal level. I think there should be an entire agency in the government staffed civil servants familiar with workings of police departments who are committed to reform and oversight. We should look to the EU to see how they keep oversee their own law enforcement departments, which are more cleanly divided by role. I am not interested in a debate about cost however, considering the cost of pay outs to families to prevent lawsuits due to unlawful shootings. They are shocking if t you dig into it. Edit: I felt your post was fine. It is totally file to be unsure about things and to talk about them to work out your thoughts. Thanks, I just didn't want to get into a big argument when I know as a foreigner I don't have the same information or life experiences. I think here in Canada we have much better oversight. No one here leading a police force is a voted official they are experienced guys who work there way up. They are also much higher paid, which could lead to a higher educated/quality applicant (debatable). Clearly there is an issue and one that has been there a long time but I don't think the cops are the only problem. There is likely a few very bad apples that are spoiling the bunch and they need to be taken care of. I think the bigger issue is how acceptable/common violence and specifically gun violence is right now in the states. People point to one group, police, gangs, whoever but I think the issue is cultural. And as someone who lives 45 mins from the border and sees more and more coming to Canada I hope a solution is found.
To be honest, I think decades of cop and crime shows have given the public false sense that the justice system is completely fair and functional across the country. Having worked in both the civil and criminal parts of the justice system, that delusion was shattered quickly.
I don’t like the “few bad apples” approach anymore. Although the worst problems within the police departments are often caused by a small number of cops, is a compliancy within many police departments that allows, enables and often defends those bad officers. Police Unions are a shining example of this, who by design have zero interest in justice and public good, but expose those beliefs as a form of PR.
Much like the dysfunction in banking culture, the problems with police in the US are caused by bad actors and indifference. Police, in general, have never gotten away from the culture of protecting their own over assure the public good.
On May 03 2018 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:
Interesting. I’m sure he will provide a much need direction to the President’s team. Thought I am not convinced if he will able to limit the scope of the investigation at this point. I bet his role is going to be working out how the interview with Trump will work. Because that has to be coming and it isn’t something Trump can dodge. Best I can tell on the interview is that he could probably drag it out till too close to the election where the SC would decide to leave it to the people. That's mostly just speculation put together by random legal folks, but also best I can tell, no one can know for sure how it would go down or how long it would take if he refused until compelled (if he can be, though most think he can from what I've read).
Failure to comply with a subpoena by the President would enter a very weird legal world. I think it would be considered an abuse of power and obstruction, since the courts don’t any real ability to compel the Executive Branch(Jackson proved this) . At that point we are off into the unknown, because I’m not sure where the investigation goes after that. Maybe they forgo the interview and simply add failing to comply with a subpoena to any obstruction case.
|
|
|
On May 03 2018 06:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2018 05:28 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2018 05:12 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
It is a dangerous job for sure. But I also have to deal with random people reaching for cell phones every day and do not fear for my personal safety the overwhelming majority of the time. They are also empowered to use lethal force and enjoy the presumption that they were justified in using it. Both things the average citizen and my brother serving in Iraq and Afghanistan did not enjoy. Our troops in war zones are not allowed to return fire unless ordered to, for fear they may target the wrong people or their own troops. They are held to a higher standard than 6 police officers responded to a call at a mall Starbucks and far more likely to be convicted if they misuse lethal force. There is something deeply wrong with how the justice system and the American public view the use of lethal force by police.
Also, nationally police are reluctant to provide data on how often they use lethal or non-lethal force. As a nation we do not collect that data. I would not be surprised if we have more information about the performance of fire departments at a national level. Police department and police unions don’t want to report what they are doing to anyone, including the state and local governments they serve. Edit: Not well enough thought out to have a great response. Was not trying to argue, just point out that it is not always simple. I don’t disagree. I am someone who was “pro-police” about years ago. I had a lot of faith in the judicial system to deal with unlawful uses of lethal force. I followed a lot of the cases of unarmed shootings by police over the last 5 or so year. Needless to say, my faith in the system, police training and police themselves has been completely eroded. I consider the current trajectory of law enforcement on a national level to be a real threat to civil liberates and faith in our governmental systems. Police departments need to get with the times and realize smart phone cameras are not going away. Pandora’s box is open. As smart guy named Austin Walker once said “Its(police) always been like this for black folk, we just have video now.” Public faith will continue to erode unless police realize that reform is their only salvation. Another 10 years of unarmed shootings with zero convictions is going to lead to of angry people who will decide that the best response to unchecked unarmed shootings and police abuse is to burn down the police station. I do support strong oversight of police departments at a federal level. I think there should be an entire agency in the government staffed civil servants familiar with workings of police departments who are committed to reform and oversight. We should look to the EU to see how they keep oversee their own law enforcement departments, which are more cleanly divided by role. I am not interested in a debate about cost however, considering the cost of pay outs to families to prevent lawsuits due to unlawful shootings. They are shocking if t you dig into it. Edit: I felt your post was fine. It is totally file to be unsure about things and to talk about them to work out your thoughts. Thanks, I just didn't want to get into a big argument when I know as a foreigner I don't have the same information or life experiences. I think here in Canada we have much better oversight. No one here leading a police force is a voted official they are experienced guys who work there way up. They are also much higher paid, which could lead to a higher educated/quality applicant (debatable). Clearly there is an issue and one that has been there a long time but I don't think the cops are the only problem. There is likely a few very bad apples that are spoiling the bunch and they need to be taken care of. I think the bigger issue is how acceptable/common violence and specifically gun violence is right now in the states. People point to one group, police, gangs, whoever but I think the issue is cultural. And as someone who lives 45 mins from the border and sees more and more coming to Canada I hope a solution is found. To be honest, I think decades of cop and crime shows have given the public false sense that the justice system is completely fair and functional across the country. Having worked in both the civil and criminal parts of the justice system, that delusion was shattered quickly. I don’t like the “few bad apples” approach anymore. Although the worst problems within the police departments are often caused by a small number of cops, is a compliancy within many police departments that allows, enables and often defends those bad officers. Police Unions are a shining example of this, who by design have zero interest in justice and public good, but expose those beliefs as a form of PR. Much like the dysfunction in banking culture, the problems with police in the US are caused by bad actors and indifference. Police, in general, have never gotten away from the culture of protecting their own over assure the public good. Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:
Interesting. I’m sure he will provide a much need direction to the President’s team. Thought I am not convinced if he will able to limit the scope of the investigation at this point. I bet his role is going to be working out how the interview with Trump will work. Because that has to be coming and it isn’t something Trump can dodge. Best I can tell on the interview is that he could probably drag it out till too close to the election where the SC would decide to leave it to the people. That's mostly just speculation put together by random legal folks, but also best I can tell, no one can know for sure how it would go down or how long it would take if he refused until compelled (if he can be, though most think he can from what I've read). Failure to comply with a subpoena by the President would enter a very weird legal world. I think it would be considered an abuse of power and obstruction, since the courts don’t any real ability to compel the Executive Branch(Jackson proved this) . At that point we are off into the unknown, because I’m not sure where the investigation goes after that. Maybe they forgo the interview and simply add failing to comply with a subpoena to any obstruction case.
As much as I dislike pretty much everything about the police, it's not untrue that it's rare where it's a situation of literal KKK members are in charge of police departments any more (as far as we know anyway) but they still are pretty prevalent throughout the country. The complacency and putting themselves above the public good are some of the key factors of why it doesn't get better though.
On the Trump interview; Trump's whole presidency has been a plunge into 'the unknown', at this point that's got to have pretty good odds. I think it's all a sham anyway though so I expect him to eventually submit to the questions and miraculously manage not to perjure himself, at least not in a way that would matter to anyone.
But it's Trump, and it's possible he's refuses just to get a bigger section in the history books.
|
On May 03 2018 06:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 06:32 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2018 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2018 05:28 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2018 05:12 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
It is a dangerous job for sure. But I also have to deal with random people reaching for cell phones every day and do not fear for my personal safety the overwhelming majority of the time. They are also empowered to use lethal force and enjoy the presumption that they were justified in using it. Both things the average citizen and my brother serving in Iraq and Afghanistan did not enjoy. Our troops in war zones are not allowed to return fire unless ordered to, for fear they may target the wrong people or their own troops. They are held to a higher standard than 6 police officers responded to a call at a mall Starbucks and far more likely to be convicted if they misuse lethal force. There is something deeply wrong with how the justice system and the American public view the use of lethal force by police.
Also, nationally police are reluctant to provide data on how often they use lethal or non-lethal force. As a nation we do not collect that data. I would not be surprised if we have more information about the performance of fire departments at a national level. Police department and police unions don’t want to report what they are doing to anyone, including the state and local governments they serve. Edit: Not well enough thought out to have a great response. Was not trying to argue, just point out that it is not always simple. I don’t disagree. I am someone who was “pro-police” about years ago. I had a lot of faith in the judicial system to deal with unlawful uses of lethal force. I followed a lot of the cases of unarmed shootings by police over the last 5 or so year. Needless to say, my faith in the system, police training and police themselves has been completely eroded. I consider the current trajectory of law enforcement on a national level to be a real threat to civil liberates and faith in our governmental systems. Police departments need to get with the times and realize smart phone cameras are not going away. Pandora’s box is open. As smart guy named Austin Walker once said “Its(police) always been like this for black folk, we just have video now.” Public faith will continue to erode unless police realize that reform is their only salvation. Another 10 years of unarmed shootings with zero convictions is going to lead to of angry people who will decide that the best response to unchecked unarmed shootings and police abuse is to burn down the police station. I do support strong oversight of police departments at a federal level. I think there should be an entire agency in the government staffed civil servants familiar with workings of police departments who are committed to reform and oversight. We should look to the EU to see how they keep oversee their own law enforcement departments, which are more cleanly divided by role. I am not interested in a debate about cost however, considering the cost of pay outs to families to prevent lawsuits due to unlawful shootings. They are shocking if t you dig into it. Edit: I felt your post was fine. It is totally file to be unsure about things and to talk about them to work out your thoughts. Thanks, I just didn't want to get into a big argument when I know as a foreigner I don't have the same information or life experiences. I think here in Canada we have much better oversight. No one here leading a police force is a voted official they are experienced guys who work there way up. They are also much higher paid, which could lead to a higher educated/quality applicant (debatable). Clearly there is an issue and one that has been there a long time but I don't think the cops are the only problem. There is likely a few very bad apples that are spoiling the bunch and they need to be taken care of. I think the bigger issue is how acceptable/common violence and specifically gun violence is right now in the states. People point to one group, police, gangs, whoever but I think the issue is cultural. And as someone who lives 45 mins from the border and sees more and more coming to Canada I hope a solution is found. To be honest, I think decades of cop and crime shows have given the public false sense that the justice system is completely fair and functional across the country. Having worked in both the civil and criminal parts of the justice system, that delusion was shattered quickly. I don’t like the “few bad apples” approach anymore. Although the worst problems within the police departments are often caused by a small number of cops, is a compliancy within many police departments that allows, enables and often defends those bad officers. Police Unions are a shining example of this, who by design have zero interest in justice and public good, but expose those beliefs as a form of PR. Much like the dysfunction in banking culture, the problems with police in the US are caused by bad actors and indifference. Police, in general, have never gotten away from the culture of protecting their own over assure the public good. On May 03 2018 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:
Interesting. I’m sure he will provide a much need direction to the President’s team. Thought I am not convinced if he will able to limit the scope of the investigation at this point. I bet his role is going to be working out how the interview with Trump will work. Because that has to be coming and it isn’t something Trump can dodge. Best I can tell on the interview is that he could probably drag it out till too close to the election where the SC would decide to leave it to the people. That's mostly just speculation put together by random legal folks, but also best I can tell, no one can know for sure how it would go down or how long it would take if he refused until compelled (if he can be, though most think he can from what I've read). Failure to comply with a subpoena by the President would enter a very weird legal world. I think it would be considered an abuse of power and obstruction, since the courts don’t any real ability to compel the Executive Branch(Jackson proved this) . At that point we are off into the unknown, because I’m not sure where the investigation goes after that. Maybe they forgo the interview and simply add failing to comply with a subpoena to any obstruction case. As some one who has worked for and with unions I could see that as a major problems, most if not all unions seem to use all there might and power to protect the members, and mostly ones that do not deserve to be protected. Which creates danger and general shittyness for the other members and often drags them down into the "well he didn't get in trouble it so I'm going to do it too bs" This would be off topic but at this point at least here in Canada with safety rules, minimum wage and so on I think that unions do much more harm then good. I would be fine if they went away.
I draw a pretty stark line with most unions and police Unions. Unions are supposed to advocate for their members and no one else. That is there role and there is a purity to that. Working in a law firm has made me respect that there is a clarity to negotiations if both sides are not interested if the other side gets what they want. It does get into a level of dysfunction if a teachers union is protecting an abusive teacher, for instance. But that beyond the negotiating table itself.
Police Unions are protecting civil servants empowered the state to deprive me of my civil liberties, health and well being. Advocacy by unions against oversight of police is directly against my self interest as an third party. Police unions attack the DA's that are bringing charges against police for wrong doing. They conduct their own investigations. They are unique in the world of unions, but present themselves as interested in the public good and justice. There is also a conflict of interest, since police are supposed to regulate themselves. Hence why I want independent, disinterested oversight of police departments.
@GH: former skin heads have been talking about white nationalists giving up the outward facing skinhead lifestyle, getting a clean cut look and joining law enforcement. They have been talking about it since the late 1990s. The FBI complied a report about it, which is mostly been ignored because its politically challenging to dig into that police departments. Again, police need to see the writing on the wall, because that stuff is public knowledge. The era of people who trust the police due to infinity seasons of Law and Order is quickly ending and they don't understand why.
|
Looks like Cobb was uncomfortable with Trumps attacks on Murller and did not want to be a part of a mudslinging campaign. You would hope that Flood would be a serious person who does not want to be a part of Republicans’ anti-DOJ and anti-FBI political campaign but he apparently wants to be more combative.
|
On May 03 2018 07:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Looks like Cobb was uncomfortable with Trumps attacks on Murller and did not want to be a part of a mudslinging campaign. You would hope that Flood would be a serious person who does not want to be a part of Republicans’ anti-DOJ and anti-FBI political campaign but he apparently wants to be more combative.
I don't understand much of that interpretation based off of reporting, but I did find some more information on his history.
Flood attended Yale Law and was a clerk for Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court.
He was head of the White House Counsel's Office for two years under President George W. Bush, specializing in the administration's response to congressional investigations.
He represented President George W. Bush after his term in office in issues relating to executive privilege.
He also personally represented Vice President Dick Cheney in Valerie Plame's civil case against Bush administration senior officials.
Flood's firm represented Hillary Clinton during her email scandal, which was considered to be one of the reasons that he had turned down a White House job earlier this year, per Reuters.
www.axios.com
The report cited uses present tense, but presumably his firm wont be representing Hillary while he represents Trump, but you know... lol
Flood’s law firm, Williams and Connolly, represents Hillary Clinton, including in the email scandal, one possible reason that sources told Reuters last year the firm turned down representing Trump as outside counsel.
www.reuters.com
The secrets this guy must know..
|
Conflicts of interest really common in law firms, politics aside. They are impossible to avoid. There are well established standards and practices to keep the teams separate.
I don’t think the firm would take on both Clinton and Trump as clients at the same time. But their representation in the email case is mostly resolved and the attorney working for Trump would not have access to the details of that resolved case.
|
On May 03 2018 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 07:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Looks like Cobb was uncomfortable with Trumps attacks on Murller and did not want to be a part of a mudslinging campaign. You would hope that Flood would be a serious person who does not want to be a part of Republicans’ anti-DOJ and anti-FBI political campaign but he apparently wants to be more combative. I don't understand much of that interpretation based off of reporting, but I did find some more information on his history. Show nested quote +Flood attended Yale Law and was a clerk for Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court.
He was head of the White House Counsel's Office for two years under President George W. Bush, specializing in the administration's response to congressional investigations.
He represented President George W. Bush after his term in office in issues relating to executive privilege.
He also personally represented Vice President Dick Cheney in Valerie Plame's civil case against Bush administration senior officials.
Flood's firm represented Hillary Clinton during her email scandal, which was considered to be one of the reasons that he had turned down a White House job earlier this year, per Reuters. www.axios.comThe report cited uses present tense, but presumably his firm wont be representing Hillary while he represents Trump, but you know... lol Show nested quote +Flood’s law firm, Williams and Connolly, represents Hillary Clinton, including in the email scandal, one possible reason that sources told Reuters last year the firm turned down representing Trump as outside counsel. www.reuters.comThe secrets this guy must know..
The firm probably also has 10,000 other clients. Saying the firm represents Hillary is not an effective "But Hillary" attempt.
|
the firm represented clinton for emails. not flood, specifically.
williams connolly is pretty much the best litigation shop out there. it's not surprising their attorneys would be involved in a lot of really high profile stuff, as long as they aren't on both sides of an issue.
it's almost funny having cohen on the team and then a guy from WC. kind of like if you put randy moss on a team with a quarterback with no arms.
|
On May 03 2018 07:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2018 07:05 Doodsmack wrote:
Looks like Cobb was uncomfortable with Trumps attacks on Murller and did not want to be a part of a mudslinging campaign. You would hope that Flood would be a serious person who does not want to be a part of Republicans’ anti-DOJ and anti-FBI political campaign but he apparently wants to be more combative. I don't understand much of that interpretation based off of reporting, but I did find some more information on his history. Flood attended Yale Law and was a clerk for Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court.
He was head of the White House Counsel's Office for two years under President George W. Bush, specializing in the administration's response to congressional investigations.
He represented President George W. Bush after his term in office in issues relating to executive privilege.
He also personally represented Vice President Dick Cheney in Valerie Plame's civil case against Bush administration senior officials.
Flood's firm represented Hillary Clinton during her email scandal, which was considered to be one of the reasons that he had turned down a White House job earlier this year, per Reuters. www.axios.comThe report cited uses present tense, but presumably his firm wont be representing Hillary while he represents Trump, but you know... lol Flood’s law firm, Williams and Connolly, represents Hillary Clinton, including in the email scandal, one possible reason that sources told Reuters last year the firm turned down representing Trump as outside counsel. www.reuters.comThe secrets this guy must know.. The firm probably also has 10,000 other clients. Saying the firm represents Hillary is not an effective "But Hillary" attempt.
lol, it's not a "but hillary" attempt. People asked why he refused the job back then, Reuters reported that it might have been because his firm was currently (at the time) representing Hillary.
The reference to the secrets was just that he's been involved in some shit where the attorney would hear/see some crazy stuff (I'd imagine anyway) . Personally clerking for Scalia, representing Two presidents and George Bush, and I guess maybe something from the email thing, but he got little more from that than cooler talk I'd imagine. And now Trump.
Just imagine a book by that guy in a world where attorney-client privilege really was dead.
|
Giuliani appears to be unveiling Team Donald Trump's new aggressive strategy on Sean Hannity's TV show right now. The first prong of the strategy is to admit that Trump repaid $130k to Cohen for the purpose of silencing Stormy Daniels (Trump previously said he did not know about the payment and did not repay). The second prong is to compare regular law enforcement agents in NYC to Nazis. The third prong is to call for Sessions and Rosenstein to shut down the special counsel. Of course Guiliani is mainly just saying this to Sean Hannity's audience because the probe isn't actually going to get shut down:
|
This story is a good read because it details just how brazen the Mercers are. Today they declared the CA was “shutting down” due to lost customers. The placed the blame solely on the “witch hunt”.
Except they didn’t really. They just packed up the data and software, and moved to a new shell company with the same intent, controlling Govement through backing conservative and stoking grievance. There billionaires need to have the a government take them down a peg.
|
On May 03 2018 11:39 Doodsmack wrote:Giuliani appears to be unveiling Team Donald Trump's new aggressive strategy on Sean Hannity's TV show right now. The first prong of the strategy is to admit that Trump repaid $130k to Cohen for the purpose of silencing Stormy Daniels (Trump previously said he did not know about the payment and did not repay). The second prong is to compare regular law enforcement agents in NYC to Nazis. The third prong is to call for Sessions and Rosenstein to shut down the special counsel. Of course Guiliani is mainly just saying this to Sean Hannity's audience because the probe isn't actually going to get shut down: https://twitter.com/cspan/status/991393309766582272
I'm hearing that Giuliani also said that he wants Trump to answer Mueller's questions via audio tape? Not exactly boasting confidence in the President is he.
|
DJT is shifting from a legal strategy lead by a lawyer (Cobb), to a media strategy led by an aging politician (Giuliani). Note how Giuliani isn't making legal arguments here and sure as hell won't be answering any interrogatories with the Mueller team. Trump has given up and is just going to try to push all out for the Hannity audience and hope the disengaged middle doesn't see what is going on.
|
On May 03 2018 12:47 Wulfey_LA wrote:
DJT is shifting from a legal strategy lead by a lawyer (Cobb), to a media strategy led by an aging politician (Giuliani). Note how Giuliani isn't making legal arguments here and sure as hell won't be answering any interrogatories with the Mueller team. Trump has given up and is just going to try to push all out for the Hannity audience and hope the disengaged middle doesn't see what is going on.
Is there a disengaged middle that doesn't see what is going on or are people just in their camps and can't see much of anything that undermines their already established views?
|
On May 03 2018 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 12:47 Wulfey_LA wrote:
DJT is shifting from a legal strategy lead by a lawyer (Cobb), to a media strategy led by an aging politician (Giuliani). Note how Giuliani isn't making legal arguments here and sure as hell won't be answering any interrogatories with the Mueller team. Trump has given up and is just going to try to push all out for the Hannity audience and hope the disengaged middle doesn't see what is going on. Is there a disengaged middle that doesn't see what is going on or are people just in their camps and can't see much of anything that undermines their already established views?
Think of my dad who only watches reality shows and a smattering of stock trading TV. He gets the occasional hateful / racist chain letter from colleagues. He doesn't understand obstruction of justice charges and doesn't care to do so. Perhaps he might not pay enough attention and just appreciate the stock gains and not care about anything else.
Or perhaps Rudy is such a useless fuckface that he blew up both of his client's best defenses on live TV.
Admitting that it wasn't the Rosenstein memo and that Comey was fired for not exonerating Trump per his demands keeps the obstruction of justice dream alive. And blowing DJT's lies about Stormy Daniels up ... uh ... wow that is a real lawsuit right now. Maybe Rudy's imbecilic admissions will reach my father.
|
On May 03 2018 11:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Giuliani appears to be unveiling Team Donald Trump's new aggressive strategy on Sean Hannity's TV show right now. The first prong of the strategy is to admit that Trump repaid $130k to Cohen for the purpose of silencing Stormy Daniels (Trump previously said he did not know about the payment and did not repay). The second prong is to compare regular law enforcement agents in NYC to Nazis. The third prong is to call for Sessions and Rosenstein to shut down the special counsel. Of course Guiliani is mainly just saying this to Sean Hannity's audience because the probe isn't actually going to get shut down:
I think at this point, calling it a strategy is a bit generous. He basically took all the shit real people have known, and blurted it out live where all the Fox people will see it for the first time. Incredible.
|
On May 03 2018 13:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Giuliani appears to be unveiling Team Donald Trump's new aggressive strategy on Sean Hannity's TV show right now. The first prong of the strategy is to admit that Trump repaid $130k to Cohen for the purpose of silencing Stormy Daniels (Trump previously said he did not know about the payment and did not repay). The second prong is to compare regular law enforcement agents in NYC to Nazis. The third prong is to call for Sessions and Rosenstein to shut down the special counsel. Of course Guiliani is mainly just saying this to Sean Hannity's audience because the probe isn't actually going to get shut down:
I think at this point, calling it a strategy is a bit generous. He basically took all the shit real people have known, and blurted it out live where all the Fox people will see it for the first time. Incredible.
I think it fits right into the strategy I was talking about before. You just put all this stuff out there, then vaguely deny it, then it gets confirmed then everyone just files it away and moves on.
These things take any sting out of some grand presentation of it at the end. It's unlikely imo that there's anything 'groundbreaking' that will be revealed that most people didn't presume was true (or didn't care about) in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
