Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 11, 2017

OTP 11 December, 2017 - GOP strategist: Moore would have ‘date with a baseball bat’ if he tried dating teens where I grew up

“I grew up in Mississippi. Every father I knew, if he saw a guy like Roy Moore in his 30s trying to date his 16-year-old daughter, he would have had a date with a baseball bat,” Stevens, a former aide to Mitt Romney’s campaign, said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.”

Stevens, who worked on former Alabama Gov. Bob Riley’s (R) primary campaign against Moore in 2006, said Moore has violated the “decency standard” of civil society in his previous alleged pursuit of teenage girls.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 11, 2017 at 08:53 AM | 2653 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bats, bats are afraid, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 24 of 27 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 26 >  Last ›
   2301. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 06:52 AM (#5593651)
I've spent a lot of time working around medical research (as a medical librarian) -- the idea that medical researchers can't use the phrase "evidence-based" is insane.


Well it’s beyond refute that the Republican Party is the party of Creationism. You need to understand that from their perspective, what science calls “evidence” are things that they already know with complete certainty were placed on earth by the devil to test their faith in Jesus.
   2302. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 06:56 AM (#5593652)
Clapper, #2247:
PRO TIP: Those groups don't believe half the stuff they put out, neither should you.


Irony-pulverizing Primey to #2247.

This week in Yankee Clapper judge chat:
Trump forced to yank two of his embarrassing judicial nominees: total silence
Another of Trump's nominees is completely unfamiliar with first-month-of-law-school legal terms: *cricket sounds*
One of Trump's confirmations has resumed tweeting: BREAKING NEWS!!!
   2303. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 06:59 AM (#5593653)
It's kind of embarrassing, actually, that someone would respond to someone better informed and more rational than they by claiming the better informed and more rational person is on the autism spectrum. It's kind of like tipping over the Risk table when you're down to one country and two armies -- only like twenty times douchier.
Okay, so then on the douchiness scale, we have:

1000. Inventing a loony theory about a year and then claiming that every single fact and its opposite supports that theory.
500. Pretending to be a lawyer.
100. Responding "LOL" or "concession accepted" after one has lost an argument.
50. referring to oneself as "this space"
20. calling someone autistic
1. Overturning risk board.
   2304. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:02 AM (#5593654)
Ray on 'Star Wars,' #2297:
I've not watched 5 minutes of this "franchise."


We know, we know. You enjoy not enjoying things more than anyone has ever enjoyed anything.

Your thrillbone is dead to Luke Skywalker, and only gets tickled by things like the imaginative dreamscapes weaved by the modern-day Aesop, Alan Dershowitz.

Besides, why would somebody sit through 17 grueling hours of simplified space opera, when they could be watching 279 hours of simplified police station procedure and overfamiliar insert shots of palm trees? Life's just too short to waste.

But since I'm making fun, I must say in candor that I'm closer to Ray on the "Star Wars" reaction gamut-o-tron. The inexhaustible saga has a lot less there there than the popular culture insists it has. Hurry, fellow spunky cipher, let's attack/sneak onto the enemy ship and destroy/dismantle the thing before it blows up the friend place (x 18).
   2305. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:10 AM (#5593655)
David, I've admitted errors more times around here than you and Ray and Clapper put together.**
Um, this is kind of like bragging that one has survived driving one's car into a tree more times than another person.

Tell us about copyright law again, though, please? I need a laugh.
   2306. Morty Causa Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:12 AM (#5593656)
I saw the first two when they came out. Probably seen the entirety of the third, but in bits and pieces, That comic book action stuff seems to be for the young. After a diet of this, one should at some point reach a satiated state. But, hey, each to his own. Some people don't ask for much when it comes to diversions. But, then, I'm an old fogey. I rarely watch current movies (current being after 1979 about--no kidding).
   2307. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:16 AM (#5593657)

And people here -- including you IIRC -- think that he may have implicated Trump in something in exchange for his plea deal.
Sigh. You're not paying attention to your own argument. You just said that it wasn't a crime. So how could he have "implicated" Trump in it?

"Yes, you got me. I broke the law. But before you prosecute me, note that I am willing to testify that Trump did something which isn't illegal. Now reduce my sentence, please."
   2308. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:20 AM (#5593658)
I've not watched 5 minutes of this "franchise."
Is Andy posting under your account? Why are there scare quotes around franchise?

Note that you wasted a minimum of 132 hours of your limited lifespan watching Frasier. Well, 97 hours if you skipped commercials. (That of course assumes that you watched each episode only once; I assume you actually spent many many many many many more hours than that.)
   2309. Greg K Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:45 AM (#5593659)
It's always a risk watching highly acclaimed shows. It's not so much a matter of whether they have been over-hyped, but will they be worth giving up the sense of superiority derived from telling people "I haven't watched it"?

I recently picked up Mad Men, which so far passes the test. Still anxious about Breaking Bad.

Though admittedly, I'm shying away from that Breaking Bad mostly because I have become sensitized to violence in my old age, and I hear people die in that one.
   2310. Greg K Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:47 AM (#5593660)
Speaking of highly acclaimed shows, I watched Lady Bird again last night as a reward for surviving the term. Upon second viewing it is further entrenched as my favourite movie in a long while.
   2311. Lassus Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:52 AM (#5593661)
Anyone opposed to using that phrase without any meaningful justification

I'm sure Clapper and JE can provide this, as proponents of the plan.
   2312. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:37 AM (#5593666)
David, I've admitted errors more times around here than you and Ray and Clapper put together.**

Um, this is kind of like bragging that one has survived driving one's car into a tree more times than another person.


No, it's more like being secure enough to recognize that I don't know everything, and that there are always new things to learn, even from people you don't generally agree with. You and Ray and Clapper should try it sometime.

Tell us about copyright law again, though, please? I need a laugh.

Case in point of the above. Ray schooled me on that, and I wasn't ashamed to admit it. Now if only you'd be as willing to learn something about 20th century American history beyond standard issue contrarianism taken from God knows where---Your parents? Some right wing professor at Princeton? A check you had to write to the IRS?---a lot of people would have even more respect for you than they do already.

Now tell us once again about how the Southern Strategy is a Liberal Myth. We could all use a good guffaw these days.
   2313. Tony S Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:37 AM (#5593667)
Welcome to Newspeak.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, phrases like "science-based" and "evidence-based" are no longer permissible on CDC documents.

Gee, I wonder whose idea this was?

It will be illuminating to hear the administration apologists here defend this.
   2314. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:47 AM (#5593668)
Not to mention always addressing the person you're responding to in the passive/aggressive, indirect manner, as if you were issuing some Papal edict or a Supreme Court decision. Is the word "you" even in your vocabulary?

I'm not talking just to you. I'm pointing out to all who read the thread that you deliberately chose to quote from multiple posters without identifying who said what in an attempt to make it look like I said things I didn't. Poor form, and continuing to defend such actions is a considerable departure from the norm here. You know that, but obviously you don't care. Direct enough?


Congratulations, you've learned a new word, and (naturally) used it in the service of defending your decade long practice of issuing comments as if they were coming From Above. This would work a lot better if you were Pope Francis or a Supreme Court Justice.

P. S. You've used that imperial style of communicating constantly ever since you've shown up here, not just since last night, which renders the particulars of this latest (laughable) complaint of yours somewhat irrelevant.
   2315. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:39 AM (#5593670)
The inexhaustible saga has a lot less there there than the popular culture insists it has. Hurry, fellow spunky cipher, let's attack/sneak onto the enemy ship and destroy/dismantle the thing before it blows up the friend place (x 18).


There's truth to that, and Lord did this latest have that in spades. Most of the movie was re-written scenes from the previous 7.
   2316. BDC Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5593672)
It's always a risk watching highly acclaimed shows. It's not so much a matter of whether they have been over-hyped, but will they be worth giving up the sense of superiority derived from telling people "I haven't watched it"?

More and more, I don't understand how people have time to watch every highly-acclaimed show. With movies, you can sort of keep up if you keep alert. But even the shortest shows come in eight- or nine-hour seasons. Breaking Bad must be 45 hours or more. Mad Men is closer to 70. I did see both of those, but it put a serious dent in my waking life. We just embarked on The Shield, which I never saw BITD because I was a Wire fan and two of those at the same time was too much. The Shield is thrilling but is going to take us another couple of months to finish.

I'm not exactly proud of never having seen any of Lost, or Game of Thrones, or House of Cards, or Orange is the New Black, or The Handmaid's Tale, but realistically I just may not live long enough.

   2317. McCoy Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5593674)
At the time I thought the shield was great but it does drag on too long. I think somewhere around Glenn close is when it goes off the rails.

I'm currently working through the sopranos Asian. Generally watch it when the significant other is out of town.
   2318. BDC Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:58 AM (#5593676)
the sopranos Asian

Do you mean "The Sopranos again?" Or is there a Hong Kong adaptation. That would be pretty cool, actually.
   2319. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM (#5593677)
Meet me at the Bada Bring club, Ralphie.
   2320. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:41 AM (#5593680)
More and more, I don't understand how people have time to watch every highly-acclaimed show.


I feel the same way about people who can regularly post in the OTP thread. It's all I can do just to keep pace, and I'm but a simple lurker!
   2321. stig-tossled,hornswoggled gef the talking mongoose Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:41 AM (#5593681)
I'm not exactly proud of never having seen any of Lost, or Game of Thrones, or House of Cards, or Orange is the New Black, or The Handmaid's Tale, but realistically I just may not live long enough.


This. Well, most of those I couldn't care less about (Lost & Handmaid's Tale are the exceptions), but I estimate somewhat conservatively that there are at least 100 series from the last 15-ish years that would be right up my alley. Damn, though, I'm already watching movies when I'm not reading books, pretty much, & I just obtained a Roku via Charter (though I'm not going to use it much if it persists in not acknowledging my remote unless I hold the thing right in front of it) ... *sigh*

Only (limited, of course) series I've watched in the last few months is the first 2 seasons of Stranger Things.
   2322. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:45 AM (#5593682)
[2313] I actually don’t think it was Trump’s idea. It probably came from the people on his Evangelical advisory board or Mike Pence.
   2323. PreservedFish Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5593683)
The inexhaustible saga has a lot less there there than the popular culture insists it has. Hurry, fellow spunky cipher, let's attack/sneak onto the enemy ship and destroy/dismantle the thing before it blows up the friend place (x 18).


Yes. But that's just the action. I think it's unfair to call the characters ciphers. There are any number of classic themes at play. The arc of the story, Luke's journey, Vader's redemption etc, is famously modeled on mythological archetypes. Doesn't mean it's brilliant, but, it's something for fans to chew on.

Some of the characters are ciphers, but sometimes ciphers are fun. I don't want Chewbacca to have a backstory. Or even Han Solo for that matter. I don't want James Bond to be escaping an emotionally tortured past. I don't want the Alien to have any motivation beyond animal instinct. I guess it's sad that Rambo felt rejected by his country after he returned from Vietnam, but that's not why I watch, I watch because of his profound facility with pointy sticks.

For that matter, Morty ("Some people don't ask for much when it comes to diversions."), I don't want Jeeves to have a backstory either.
   2324. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM (#5593684)
More and more, I don't understand how people have time to watch every highly-acclaimed show.

I feel the same way about people who can regularly post in the OTP thread. It's all I can do just to keep pace, and I'm but a simple lurker!

Hell, if you want to wonder about how people have the time to do what they do, you might wonder how people like Douglas Brinkley can churn out 500 to 900 page doorstoppers at the rate of about a dozen a decade, while also holding down a teaching job and being called upon by the media to opine about every current political development. I know how he does it, and how lots of other authors like him do it,** but I'm still pretty damn impressed.

** Lots and lots and lots and lots of er, "editorial assistants"
   2325. PepTech Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5593702)
I feel the same way about people who can regularly post in the OTP thread. It's all I can do just to keep pace, and I'm but a simple lurker!
My employers wonder about this, too...
   2326. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5593704)
So in the same week a conservative pundit claims the FBI is turning into the KGB the Ministry of Truth under Trump, er Center for Disease Control, is banned from using the words "evidence-based" and "science-based" in its publications.

As Chomsky said, the irony is almost too much to bear.
   2327. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5593705)
What Lenny Bruce once said about Chicago could apply to the entire Trump administration: They're so corrupt, it's thrilling.
   2328. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5593708)
And people here -- including you IIRC -- think that he may have implicated Trump in something in exchange for his plea deal.

Sigh. You're not paying attention to your own argument. You just said that it wasn't a crime. So how could he have "implicated" Trump in it?

"Yes, you got me. I broke the law. But before you prosecute me, note that I am willing to testify that Trump did something which isn't illegal. Now reduce my sentence, please."


It's really hard to believe you're stooping to such frivolous arguments. Mueller's directive is to investigate Russia collusion. Which isn't illegal. And you think that if Flynn said "But before you prosecute me, note that I am willing to testify that Trump colluded with Russia," and Mueller would respond with, "No, I'm not interested in that."

That's what he's supposed to be looking for.
   2329. Chicago Joe Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5593709)
Re: Lady Bird: I'll admit being just a tad disappointed. Was expecting a great movie, merely got a gery good one.

Re: Breaking Bad: Just watch it. There's violence, but it's not gratuitous.

Re: Star Wars: I think I've seen all of them; there are some good moments and beautiful scenes, but I think the Significance attached is Gen Xers attempt to smell their own farts. Like Led Zeppelin: plenty of bombast and influence. But exceeded by a lot that followed.
   2330. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5593710)
Donald Trump is not a fundamentalist or religious extremist. However, the guy's administration is crawling with them. Evangelical leaders hit the jackpot with Trump- someone who has no understanding of their beliefs but will go along with whatever they suggest to keep their loyal support on lock down. That's how we get things like the new CDC policy. See also: military transgender ban and recognition of Jerusalem as capital.
   2331. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:16 PM (#5593714)
Donald Trump is not a fundamentalist or religious extremist. However, the guy's administration is crawling with them. Evangelical leaders hit the jackpot with Trump- someone who has no understanding of their beliefs but will go along with whatever they suggest to keep their loyal support on lock down. That's how we get things like the new CDC policy. See also: military transgender ban and recognition of Jerusalem as capital.


Yep. The guy has no principles over than self enrichment and flattery. He doesn't really GAF about any of this things other than the backslaps.
   2332. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: December 16, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5593725)
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, phrases like "science-based" and "evidence-based" are no longer permissible on CDC documents.

Gee, I wonder whose idea this was?

It will be illuminating to hear the administration apologists here defend this.

We'll hear their justifications right after they're done explaining how the soon-to-become-law tax bill is good for America. That will happen after every one of Peter Strzok's texts is turned into a Hawaii-5-0 episode and every Hillary Clinton email is the theme of a film of the Star Wars franchise.
   2333. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:13 PM (#5593742)
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, phrases like "science-based" and "evidence-based" are no longer permissible on CDC documents.

The linked article was clear, but three different posters here have misinterpreted it. The limitations only apply to Budget Documents - nothing affects researchers or scientists. This is just somebody's idea of how to impress OMB & Congress with their snappy Budget jargon. It happens in every Administration to some degree - people think that some magical choice of words will produce better results than whatever tired terminology was used before they arrived. Those with long memories will remember Jimmy Carter touting "zero-based budgeting" as the solution to deficit spending. When the CDC Budget request is released perhaps there will be something to criticize in the amounts or the categories, or not, but the choice of Budget terminology is not a gag order on scientists or researchers, and people portraying it as such either didn't read the article, don't understand the Federal Budget process, or have their own agenda.

EDIT: Now looks like about half a dozen posters have misinterpreted the budget-speak guidance as being some sort of gag order. RTFA.
   2334. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:23 PM (#5593745)
The limitations only apply to Budget Documents - nothing affects researchers or scientists.


How can a person be so obtuse and blinded by partisanship to construct such a sentence?
   2335. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:23 PM (#5593746)
Oh sure, NOW you want things to be evidence-based. Convenient.
   2336. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5593750)
The limitations only apply to Budget Documents - nothing affects researchers or scientists.

How can a person be so obtuse and blinded by partisanship to construct such a sentence?

Apparently you prefer to continue to misrepresent what the article said rather than address the substance of my comments.
   2337. BDC Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5593751)
So, Clapper, when you see this:

Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"


what is your interpretation exactly? Does that new substitute phrase represent Trump administration policy? In that case it's completely insane. Is it window dressing that the Trump folks think will placate the Congressional likes of Louie Gohmert? That's not much more reassuring. Is it some left-wing scientist's parody of what the Trump people might think will placate Louie Gohmert, and not actually a serious directive? That's about the best-case scenario here.

"It's only the budget," as if that was a minor consideration in research … so what's going to get funded? Science? The gathering of evidence? Or whatever the anti-scientific right "wishes?"
   2338. BDC Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:35 PM (#5593754)
Pasteur Institute budget documents, 1880s: "The Institute bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes. We are asking for 10M francs to study the origin of rabies in the evil spirits that possess mad dogs."
   2339. Shredder Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5593756)
This is just somebody's idea of how to impress OMB & Congress with their snappy Budget jargon. It happens in every Administration to some degree - people think that some magical choice of words will produce better results than whatever tired terminology was used before they arrived. Those with long memories will remember Jimmy Carter touting "zero-based budgeting" as the solution to deficit spending
Well, that certainly explains why they are no longer allowed to use jargony terms like "fetus". Keep carrying that water!
   2340. Spahn Insane Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5593758)
”It's only the budget," as if that was a minor consideration in research … so what's going to get funded? Science? The gathering of evidence? Or whatever the anti-scientific right "wishes?"

Or to put it another way, contrary to 2336, madvillain’s comment was indeed responsive.
   2341. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:48 PM (#5593759)
It's really hard to believe you're stooping to such frivolous arguments. Mueller's directive is to investigate Russia collusion. Which isn't illegal. And you think that if Flynn said "But before you prosecute me, note that I am willing to testify that Trump colluded with Russia," and Mueller would respond with, "No, I'm not interested in that."
Testify where, Ray? If there's no crime, there's no trial and no place for Mueller to have Flynn give testimony.
   2342. tshipman Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:49 PM (#5593761)
I have always thought that all medicine was evidence-based. If it wasn't, it was something in the nature of a nostrum or folk remedy. But I see that the phrase is something of a term of art.


I think you'd be slightly shocked at just how much of medicine is built on just-so stories.
   2343. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:49 PM (#5593762)
Conservatives hate science. There really isn’t much more to it than that. They aren’t good at it, they don’t understand it, and unless it leads to blowing up things and killing their enemies, they don’t see the point in it. Science and medicine has done too good a job protecting them from the consequences of a world without evidence-based approaches, making the advances so seamless they can attribute it all to prayer.
   2344. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:49 PM (#5593763)
Pasteur Institute budget documents, 1880s: "The Institute bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes. We are asking for 10M francs to study the origin of rabies in the evil spirits that possess mad dogs."


Thanks, I was looking for some good satire to pair with my #2334. Perfect.
   2345. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:50 PM (#5593764)
I think you'd be slightly shocked at just how much of medicine is built on just-so stories.


You're not excited for the "women just shut it down" research grant?
   2346. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:53 PM (#5593766)
So, Clapper, when you see this:

Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"


what is your interpretation exactly? Does that new substitute phrase represent Trump administration policy? In that case it's completely insane. Is it window dressing that the Trump folks think will placate the Congressional likes of Louie Gohmert? That's not much more reassuring. Is it some left-wing scientist's parody of what the Trump people might think will placate Louie Gohmert, and not actually a serious directive? That's about the best-case scenario here.

It could be many things, some of which you touched on. Someone in the Budget process may think that terminology suggests broader public support than scientists just saying "fund us"; they may think their terminology will be better received at OMB or in Congress; or someone may just want to put their own stamp on the Budget submission rather than rely on what was done before. Perhaps a combination of those and other reasons. The reporting is a bit thin - it reports one thing (new Budget terminology) while subtly implying another (some sort of gag order), leading to the widespread misinterpretations here. This is just about the blurbs that accompany the Budget numbers, nothing changes the categories or amounts, and it has no effect on front-line researchers & scientists.
   2347. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:55 PM (#5593767)
The Creationists just want scientists to stop using certain words. What’s wrong with that?
   2348. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 02:59 PM (#5593768)
Clapper, #2333:
Those with long memories will remember Jimmy Carter touting "zero-based budgeting" as the solution to deficit spending.


Remind us, YC. When he was pushing a catch phrase, which other words and terms did Jimmy Carter delete?

Those with short memories will remember when Donald Trump's Agriculture and Energy Departments mandated avoidance of the words "climate change" and "reduce greenhouse gases" way, way back in August. Or the deleting of scientific climate data from EPA websites.

But Trump and his team are trying to right the balance by also promoting previously suppressed words, like "radical Islamic terror" and "Christmas."
   2349. Morty Causa Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5593769)
I think you'd be slightly shocked at just how much of medicine is built on just-so stories.

How so? Maybe in some way, but are just-so stories open to peer-review and the scientific method (just for starters)?
   2350. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5593770)
Apparently you prefer to continue to misrepresent what the article said rather than address the substance of my comments.



I prefer to address the substance of your comments by smiling, clapping my hands and stamping my foot. Dance, Monkey, Dance!
   2351. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:01 PM (#5593771)
The Creationists just want scientists to stop using certain words. What’s wrong with that?

As much as you & others want to claim this about scientists, it is about high level budgetary bureaucrats telling low level budgetary bureaucrats how to draft a Budget submission.
   2352. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5593772)
Saw Last Jedi last night. Liked it. Pretty slow during the middle third, and it peaked with about forty minutes left (scene in the red room was one of the coolest things I've seen), and though most of the comedy hit, there was probably a bit too much of it. But still recommended.

What I may remember longer, though, is the dude who threw up with about four minutes left in the movie. A row behind us, but fortunately on the other side of the theater. A quiet scene, movie is clearly wrapping up, and a hilariously terrible gurgling sound comes from the dark theater and some dude throws up on himself. I assume it was on himself as there undoubtedly would have been screams or punches thrown had he got it on anyone else. About two miniutes go by, and my man pukes again! Just hoping it's not a real version of Outbreak.
   2353. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:05 PM (#5593773)
As much as you & others want to claim this about scientists, it is about high level budgetary bureaucrats telling low level budgetary bureaucrats how to draft a Budget submission.


A budget submission for what?
   2354. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:08 PM (#5593776)
Do you slimy little weasels* take any pause from the fact that you are on the same side as S. Hannity?

@foxnews
.@seanhannity on Mueller investigation: "By the time we untangle this massive web of corruption, it will be worse than Watergate. It will be Watergate on human growth hormones and steroids, combined, at massive levels." #Hannity http://fxn.ws/2ATMpCi


At least he pulls in $20+ million/year. What do you have to show for debasing yourselves for a literal con-man game show host? So you get to trigger libs while tut-tuting** at your city cocktail parties?




*TM The Yankee Clapper, who so famously coined this label a few months ago (and later feigned outrage when he felt others used strong language. Talk about weak character.

**TM another Deplorable here
   2355. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:09 PM (#5593778)
The limitations only apply to Budget Documents - nothing affects researchers or scientists. This is just somebody's idea of how to impress OMB & Congress with their snappy Budget jargon. ...When the CDC Budget request is released perhaps there will be something to criticize in the amounts or the categories, or not, but the choice of Budget terminology is not a gag order on scientists or researchers, and people portraying it as such either didn't read the article, don't understand the Federal Budget process, or have their own agenda.
...
Someone in the Budget process may think that terminology suggests broader public support than scientists just saying "fund us"; they may think their terminology will be better received at OMB or in Congress; or someone may just want to put their own stamp on the Budget submission rather than rely on what was done before. Perhaps a combination of those and other reasons. ...This is just about the blurbs that accompany the Budget numbers, nothing changes the categories or amounts, and it has no effect on front-line researchers & scientists.



"Eppur si cancella." ("And yet, it deletes.")
   2356. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:27 PM (#5593781)
As much as you & others want to claim this about scientists, it is about high level budgetary bureaucrats telling low level budgetary bureaucrats how to draft a Budget submission.

A budget submission for what?

Oh, my, this is pretty basic, and maybe folks should know this before making accusatory comments. We are in the final budget preparation stages, with agencies formulating their submissions to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), following whatever guidance OMB has put out. OMB puts together the overall Federal Budget under the guidance of the President & White House staff. Agencies, if they have enough clout, can generally appeal OMB's funding levels to the President if they're unhappy. The President will submit his Budget request in January, and hope Congress passes it by the October 1 start of the 2019 Fiscal Year. In the case of the CDC, its funding is part of the larger Health & Human Services Budget request, and what's being debated is just the terminology used in the blurbs that go with the numbers in the Budget request. This has nothing to do with researchers & scientists or what they can say or write in connection with their research. It doesn't even have anything to do with the categories or amounts, just someone thinking their magic words are better than the magic words his or her predecessor may have used in a previous Administration.
   2357. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 16, 2017 at 03:30 PM (#5593782)
It could be many things, some of which you touched on. Someone in the Budget process may think that terminology suggests broader public support than scientists just saying "fund us"; they may think their terminology will be better received at OMB or in Congress;

Hmmmmm, and just what does that say about Congress?

or someone may just want to put their own stamp on the Budget submission rather than rely on what was done before.

Sort of like a dog pissing on a tree just to establish that it's his tree. Trump can identify with that little ritual.

Perhaps a combination of those and other reasons. The reporting is a bit thin - it reports one thing (new Budget terminology) while subtly implying another (some sort of gag order), leading to the widespread misinterpretations here. This is just about the blurbs that accompany the Budget numbers, nothing changes the categories or amounts, and it has no effect on front-line researchers & scientists.

At best it's virtue signaling to the mouthbreathers; at worst it's a trial balloon that whoever planted it hoped could later be cited as some sort of precedent for more substantive changes----"You didn't complain then, why are you complaining now?"

One good thing, though: Now that it's out in the open, it forces Republicans either to retreat out of fear of ridicule, or to hold their ground out of fear of the Creationists. On a small scale, it's a bit like having to take sides in that Alabama Senate election, and like that Alabama election, either way it's not going to end well for them.
   2358. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:02 PM (#5593793)
In Big Tent news - Progressives Hunt Down One Of The Last Conservative Democrats:
Powerful interests are lined up against him. Outside spending groups are forming to advocate for his defeat. National political figures have endorsed his opponent. And that’s just within Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski’s own party.

Lipinski, one of the few remaining conservative Democrats in Congress, is under siege from the left, battling for his political life against progressives who are teaming up to replace him with a candidate far more in line with liberal orthodoxy.

That candidate, Marie Newman, a businesswoman and former marketing consultant, already has high-profile endorsements from feminist icon Gloria Steinem and New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand — an unusual show of opposition against a fellow Democratic congressional incumbent. Newman has also received a rare joint endorsement from a handful of influential progressive groups: NARAL, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Human Rights Campaign.
. . .
According to one analysis, Lipinski has voted in line with Trump’s positions 34.5 percent of the time — a legislative record that is begging for a primary challenge in a highly polarized era.

He was a Bernie Sanders supporter, so there may be a question of how "conservative" he really is, but he could be a goner, probably at the cost of further loosening the Democratic allegiance of his voters.
   2359. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:06 PM (#5593795)
Now that we're less than a year away from a midterm election, shouldn't we be getting regular updates on the President's approval rating again? I hope the person who diligently supplied those before isn't unwell.
   2360. Morty Causa Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:08 PM (#5593796)
   2361. Shredder Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:16 PM (#5593803)
He was a Bernie Sanders supporter, so there may be a question of how "conservative" he really is, but he could be a goner, probably at the cost of further loosening the Democratic allegiance of his voters.
Concern troll is concerned, or, shorter Hacker: "Hey Dems, there's a mote in your eye."
   2362. DavidFoss Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:31 PM (#5593809)
Concern troll is concerned

IL-3 is near Chicago and not a swing district. Hillary carried it by 15 points. A more liberal congressperson would probably be more connected with the electorate and not less.
   2363. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5593810)
Huffington Post: Rupert Murdoch Bashes As ‘Nonsense’ Concerns About Sexual Harassment At Fox:
In an interview with his Sky News TV on Thursday, media mogul Rupert Murdoch dismissed reports about sexual harassment at Fox News as “largely political because we’re conservative.”

Murdoch did say there was “sort of” a problem with former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes — whom 10 women accused of harassment, costing Murdoch’s company $45 million to settle lawsuits related to the complaints. “All nonsense. There was a problem with our chief executive [Roger Ailes], sort of, over the year — isolated incidents,” said Murdoch. “As soon as we investigated it, he was out of the place in hours, well, three or four days. And there has been nothing else since then. That was largely political because we’re conservative. Now of course the liberals are going down the drain — NBC is in deep trouble. CBS, their stars. I mean there are really bad cases and people should be moved aside. There are other things which probably amount to a bit of flirting.”

...Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s firing in April over sexual harassment accusations provoking a $32 million settlement apparently slipped Murdoch’s mind in the Sky News interview. Host Eric Bolling was also ousted in late September for sending unsolicited, explicit photos to more than a dozen of his current and former colleagues. [NOTE: Fox co-President Bill Shine also got the boot for his complicity in the sex abuse payouts and coverups.] CNN has reported that insurers will pay 21st Century Fox almost $90 million to cover the cost of settlements related to sexual harassment and racial discrimination.


Huffington Post followed up by contacting several of the women involved:
“I have had to put up with a hostile work environment for years, and now I’m told that it doesn’t exist by a man who doesn’t have to walk these halls every day? I’m hungry for justice,” said one woman who is part of the network’s on-air talent.

“Hey Rupert - stop with the lies or we’ll go public with the truth. All of it. Including about the talent and executives you still employ who have harassed us and don’t give a damn about workplace respect - only money,” said a woman who was previously a member of Fox News’ on-air talent. “How much will it take before you actually start caring about your female employees? Is your 52 billion enough? Are we really going to clean house now?”

Murdoch’s comment directly contradicts the public relations strategy of Fox News and 21st Century Fox, which has been to diligently tell reporters the era of Ailes, who died this year, and host Bill O’Reilly is over. Instead, the press reps say, Fox News has ushered in a new era of corporate responsibility and a workplace free of hostility and retaliation.

The comment is also unusual because Fox News has been the subject of a federal investigation into Ailes’ settlements for over a year. The U.S. Attorney, the FBI and the United States Postal Inspection Service are all assisting with the probe, which is looking at whether Ailes’ payouts violated federal law because they were not disclosed to shareholders. The Postal Service is involved because the investigation includes potential mail and wire fraud violations. ...Ailes used company funds to pay off women who alleged he had harassed and abused them. [Bill] O’Reilly had settled multiple sexual harassment suits while at the network, with the company’s knowledge. ...21st Century Fox had seen a draft of the lawsuit and knew O’Reilly had settled [for $32 million], but it still renewed the host’s contract in February 2017 for four more years, at $25 million a year.

...Gretchen Carlson wrote, “Mr. Murdoch: sexual harassment isn’t ‘flirting,’ ‘nonsense,’ ‘largely political’ or simply ‘isolated incidents.’ I’m calling on you to release all women who complained about sexual harassment at Fox News from the secrecy agreements you forced them to sign and let the truth come out.”

...Lauren Sivan, a television reporter who worked at Fox News and now works at a Fox station in Los Angeles owned by 21st Century Fox, said Ailes used to have her sit on his lap so he could monitor her breathing and diaphragm. He did this, she said, under the false premise of helping her speak better on television. Several women at Fox News said Ailes required them to sit on his lap and engage in the same exercise. “What kind of company pays close to 100 million dollars to keep ‘flirting’ quiet?”

...“Did this man just forget the 100 million dollars his company had to pay in settlements for terrible men behaving badly?” said a current Fox news host. “He now says it was a bit of ‘flirting’ and an issue related to the fact that Fox News has conservative hosts? Sexual harassment has nothing to do with politics. Many of us are conservative and want the truth to come out. Those of us who still work at Fox News have anxiety issues every time we see another woman coming forward with stories we have all lived through but have never shared.”

“The harassment was persistent and ongoing,” said a former Fox News reporter. “It was personally and professionally devastating for some of my colleagues and me. When the person who signs your paycheck and is responsible for promotions and demotions harasses women who rely on him, it’s more than ‘sort of’ a problem. Roger’s circle of advisors laughed off the problem and enabled his behavior to continue for years. Rupert’s dismissal is a crude insult to women. He should know better.”

...Tamara Holder, a Fox News commentator who settled with the network earlier this year over a sexual assault claim, said, “You cannot rewrite history, Mr. Murdoch. The problem was not only with your chief executive. For example, one of your former executives trapped me in his office, pulled out his penis and shoved my head on it. That’s not ‘nonsense.’ That’s criminal. ...It has been a breeding ground for sexual misconduct over the past two decades.”

...Some Fox News women who have never come forward publicly with their complaints say they are considering sharing what they experienced, and were willing to walk out if necessary. Some say Ailes sexually harassed them, while others have complaints about on-air talent and executives at the network. “I’m contacting a lawyer tomorrow,” said one Fox News host. “I’m sick of this shit.”
   2364. Tony S Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5593811)
Well, the defenders of CDC Newspeak did not disappoint. It was a Trump administration idea, ergo, it's a good idea.

Maybe they can further educate us on what the point is of suppressing these dirty, controversial phrases like "science-based". Why did any action need to be taken at all? Then again, I'm happy for Trump-sucklers that they no longer have to clutch their pearls and gasp when such inflammatory jargon invades their safe spaces.

America is that much greater now.

   2365. tshipman Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:35 PM (#5593812)
How so? Maybe in some way, but are just-so stories open to peer-review and the scientific method (just for starters)?


Well, like most knee surgeries, for example.

Consider the middle-aged guy going in for surgery to treat his knee pain. Arthroscopic knee surgery has been a common orthopedic procedure in the United States, with about 692,000 of them performed in 2010,2 but the procedure has proven no better than a sham when done to address degenerative wear and tear, particularly on the meniscus.3


A surprising number of surgeries and interventions are done without a well-designed study. That's what the whole evidence-based movement was designed to avoid.

For another example, end of life care is something that often comes up with evidence based care. Doctors suggest interventions, because they feel like they are obligated, and patients accept, despite neither feeling like it's their goal.
   2366. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:46 PM (#5593815)
IL-3 is near Chicago and not a swing district. Hillary carried it by 15 points. A more liberal congressperson would probably be more connected with the electorate and not less.

Oh, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Dems are in any danger of losing that seat. If liberal Democrats (modern liberals?) have the votes to purge the Bill Lipinskis & Joe Liebermans of the party, they can certainly do so. However, there may be other elections in which the support of voters more favorable to such candidates, largely white working class voters, are more vital to the party. In fact, I believe that was the case in the most recent presidential election.
   2367. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 16, 2017 at 04:57 PM (#5593819)
Now that we're less than a year away from a midterm election, shouldn't we be getting regular updates on the President's approval rating again? I hope the person who diligently supplied those before isn't unwell.

He's a bit under the weather, but he's asked me to fill in for him. He'll be pleased to note that Trump's RCP average as of this afternoon is -21% and falling.

On the brighter side, that's still a bit better than Nixon's was, just before the Liberal Media overthrew his presidency.
   2368. BDC Posted: December 16, 2017 at 05:07 PM (#5593821)
I do see what you're saying, Clapper. I have been in meetings where faculty are drafting some document to send up to administration, and there's some verbiage they object to, and you have to say, well, this administration wants this language, just put it in the document, it's the new buzzword. Whatever.

OTOH, I have also seen new administrations come in, and suddenly internal funding, research leaves, promotions, are dependent not just on new verbiage but on the meanings that verbiage is attached to. And those dynamics are far more substantial than just squid-ink-screens of terminology.

So I am skeptical that it's going to be all just business-as-usual, with a new layer of meaningless verbiage, at the CDC.
   2369. Shredder Posted: December 16, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5593830)
However, there may be other elections in which the support of voters more favorable to such candidates, largely white working class voters, are more vital to the party.
Hilarious to hear a shameless water carrier for the party of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, and Roy Freaking Moore lecturing Democrats on the dangers of ideological purity tests. But hey, hackers gonna hack!
   2370. DavidFoss Posted: December 16, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5593833)
However, there may be other elections in which the support of voters more favorable to such candidates, largely white working class voters, are more vital to the party. In fact, I believe that was the case in the most recent presidential election.

Sure. If a guy like Doug Jones wants to moderate his views to better represent his electorate, I'd totally get that. Each party should run moderate candidates in 'safe' districts to keep the dominant party honest.

As for the previous election, I might do some counter concern trolling. I haven't seen anything in the Ryan-McConnell legislative agenda that would help these swing voters in the states the flipped for Trump in 2016. R's appear more worried about the 'donor class' which I didn't even know was a key demographic until a few months ago.
   2371. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 06:13 PM (#5593842)
As for the previous election, I might do some counter concern trolling. I haven't seen anything in the Ryan-McConnell legislative agenda that would help these swing voters in the states the flipped for Trump in 2016.

Despite some of the commentary here & elsewhere, most of those voters will do a better under the GOP tax bill. Will it be enough to matter? Hard to say, it's probably not enough for voters with Ray-like tax sensibilities, but many don't demand a 50% cut before they actually care. The two issues central to Trump's appeal to white working class voters, opposition to illegal immigration and foreign trade agreements perceived to be unfair, are still issues he's identified with. It remains to be seen if other issues will supplant those concerns among white working class voters. However, IMHO, the key long-term consideration is that a major part of the traditional Democratic coalition is now more of a swing vote.
   2372. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 06:23 PM (#5593845)
It's really hard to believe you're stooping to such frivolous arguments. Mueller's directive is to investigate Russia collusion. Which isn't illegal. And you think that if Flynn said "But before you prosecute me, note that I am willing to testify that Trump colluded with Russia," and Mueller would respond with, "No, I'm not interested in that."

Testify where, Ray? If there's no crime, there's no trial and no place for Mueller to have Flynn give testimony.


Are you playing pedantic games with the word "testimony?" He tells what he knows to Mueller. Maybe even under oath.
   2373. Chicago Joe Posted: December 16, 2017 at 06:54 PM (#5593852)
YC, that district is decidedly less wwc than it was even a decade ago.
   2374. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:16 PM (#5593855)
Despite some of the commentary here & elsewhere, most of those voters will do a better under the GOP tax bill.


Wheeeeee! [/hand clapping and feet stamping]


Hey , man, that monkey sure can DANCE!
   2375. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:26 PM (#5593859)
Joe, aren't you like 58 years old?
   2376. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:31 PM (#5593861)
Joe, aren't you like 58 years old?


I'm 59 and a half!
   2377. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:43 PM (#5593863)
I'm 59 and a half!

So, early dementia? My sympathies.
   2378. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:44 PM (#5593865)
Axios: Mueller obtains "tens of thousands” of Trump transition emails:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has obtained “many tens of thousands" of Trump transition emails, including emails of Jared Kushner, transition team sources tell Axios.

Trump officials discovered Mueller had the emails when his prosecutors used them as the basis for questions to witnesses, the sources said.

The emails include 12 accounts, one of which contains about 7,000 emails, the sources said. The accounts include the team's political leadership and the foreign-policy team, the sources said.

Why it matters: The transition emails are said to include sensitive exchanges on matters that include potential appointments, gossip about the views of particular senators involved in the confirmation process, speculation about vulnerabilities of Trump nominees, strategizing about press statements, and policy planning on everything from war to taxes. “Mueller is using the emails to confirm things, and get new leads," a transition source told me.

How it happened: The sources say Mueller obtained the emails from the General Services Administration, the government agency that hosted the transition email system, which had addresses ending in “ptt.gov," for Presidential Transition Team.

...The twist: The sources say that transition officials assumed that Mueller would come calling, and had sifted through the emails and separated the ones they considered privileged. But the sources said that was for naught, since Mueller has the complete cache from the dozen accounts.
The counsel for the transition team is complaining that these emails were unlawfully obtained. But I thought his boss was loudly in favor of ferreting out emails? RUSSIA, if you're LISTENING, that might have just been one of funnyman Donald Trump's legendary jokes!
   2379. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:52 PM (#5593867)


So, early dementtia?



Sick burn from Dancing Monkey #1!! Don't worry, I'll drool on your grave.
   2380. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:52 PM (#5593868)
How it happened: The sources say Mueller obtained the emails from the General Services Administration, the government agency that hosted the transition email system, which had addresses ending in “ptt.gov," for Presidential Transition Team.


This would be a major blunder by Mueller that would further taint his investigation. It would be improper for Mueller to use the General Services Administration as a way to get his hands on emails that should have been reviewed by counsel first to see if they were privileged.
   2381. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:58 PM (#5593869)
The more we learn about what happened here the more it smells like one or more of the Clinton campaign (through its lawyers, Fusion, and Steele), the Russians, and maybe even the FBI (see Strzok's "insurance" email) framed Trump by planting a phony "dossier" on him and then using that to justify spying on and investigating his campaign/administration.

It's become imperative that we see the FISA warrants.


   2382. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 16, 2017 at 07:59 PM (#5593870)
This would be a major blunder by Mueller that would further taint his investigation. It would be improper for Mueller to use the General Services Administration as a way to get his hands on emails that should have been reviewed by counsel first to see if they were privileged.


You wish, dumbass. If Mueller had to rely on Trump's counsel for material evidence they'd turn over nothing. Don't you trust Mueller, Ray?
   2383. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:00 PM (#5593871)
framed Trump


I guess you don't trust Mueller. Unless you're a troll.

Dance, Monkey, Dance!
   2384. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:12 PM (#5593873)
Well, we know that Jared Kushner sent fewer than 100 private emails, and most of those were merely "quips about news stories," because his lawyer said so in August. So this is actually very exculpatory and positive for him.
   2385. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:30 PM (#5593877)
The complaining Trump lawyer says that their concern is over potential constraints to "future presidential transition teams." And also that the General Services Administration couldn't legally turn over the emails, because they're not the owner of them.

Gee, where have we heard these exact two arguments before?
   2386. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:37 PM (#5593879)
You wish, dumbass. If Mueller had to rely on Trump's counsel for material evidence they'd turn over nothing. Don't you trust Mueller, Ray?


That's not how the attorney-client privilege works.

"Did your client confess to the murder? Tell the government everything your client told you. Don't you trust the government?" is the way the attorney-client privilege worked never.
   2387. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 08:58 PM (#5593881)

He was a Bernie Sanders supporter, so there may be a question of how "conservative" he really is, but he could be a goner, probably at the cost of further loosening the Democratic allegiance of his voters.
I don't know anything about the guy, but from his wikipedia entry, he sounds pretty conservative for a Democrat. (Most importantly for internal Democratic Party politics, he's pro-life and anti-gay marriage.) I don't know that he was a Sanders supporter, per se; he announced that because Sanders had won his district, he would support Sanders at the convention.
   2388. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:00 PM (#5593882)
Invocations of attorney-client privilege for communications on a .gov email server are never a good look.
   2389. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:05 PM (#5593883)
Renato Mariotti on Twitter:
Why are Trump’s lawyers upset that Mueller obtained transition emails from a government agency? (Hint: They’re just playing politics, but this is a bad sign for them.)

Of course Mueller obtained emails from a third party. Prosecutors in most white collar criminal investigations do that. It’s not “inappropriate” or even unusual. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about.

What *is* unusual here is that Mueller obtained emails from GSA even though he could have obtained (many of) the same emails from lawyers for the Trump Transition.

Typically, in a white collar case, prosecutors obtain as many emails and documents as possible from defense attorneys instead of from another source.

One reason comes to mind. Mueller was concerned that he wouldn’t receive all of the emails if he obtained them from the Trump team. That’s surprising and suggests that he has reason to distrust Trump’s team.

It appears that obtaining the documents from GSA also allowed Mueller to surprise witnesses who were not prepared to talk about emails that they didn’t think he had.

I doubt that’s why Mueller obtained emails from GSA because any good lawyer would have reviewed the emails with their client anyway prior to an interview. Either the defense lawyers were incompetent or they weren’t surprised as they’re letting on.

If Mueller obtained a privileged email, the defense would be able to exclude it as evidence at trial. Typically all that happens is that the defense raises the issue with the prosecutor, and if the prosecutor agrees it is privileged, they return the privileged document.

Disputes over privilege are common when prosecutors obtain emails and documents from third parties. That’s very common. What’s uncommon is what the Trump lawyers did here.

Instead of sending a letter to Mueller, the attorneys sent a letter to Congress. Why? Probably to try to feed the growing effort to fire Mueller and/or try to discredit him to Congressional Republicans.

Note also that the lawyers *don’t* say that the emails are privileged. They merely claim that some of the emails are “susceptible to privilege claims.” That’s weak language that suggests they’re not confident they have a strong claim that some of the emails are privileged.

The biggest conclusion I’d draw from their letter is that they’re concerned about Mueller’s investigation and are doing whatever they can to discredit it. Their claims themselves are weak and are meant to persuade people who know nothing about criminal investigations.
   2390. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:06 PM (#5593884)

The more we learn about what happened here
You haven't learned anything more; you just stewed on it for a few days and got more upset on behalf of your hero that you totally don't support.
   2391. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:07 PM (#5593885)
More from Twitterland:

Ronald Klain:
This is a crazy 4th A claim: Mueller got emails from the government because they were on a government server. Apparently, at Trump University School of Law, the course in Constitutional law ends at the Second Amendment.


Postimus Maximus:
Also proof once again that Mueller doesn't leak : He got these emails in August. Mueller is miles ahead of what is known publicly. Always.


RynheartTheReluctant:
Rebekah Mercer was on the transition team, as well as Bannon, Pence, Flynn and Sessions


Sam Dolan:
Mueller asked transition team officials to share relevant emails. Unbenownst to them, he had *all* the emails already. So now he knows exactly who is trying to hide what.


Brian Krassenstein:
Mueller just got done interviewing numerous WH officials and no one in the WH realized that he had all these emails to base his questioning on.
...I smell a lot of “lying to federal investigators” charges coming!



Ned Price:
The hypocrisy of railing against Mueller obtaining official emails sent on a government server, when these same voices celebrated the public release of personal texts between two FBI officials....


Seth Abramson:
I know from having been a criminal defense attorney for years that there are cases you know are sure losers but which feature a long-shot legal strategy to suppress evidence and you're honor-bound as an advocate to pursue it. Something to think about, all.

...The most interesting part of this story—and this helps explain why Kushner is suddenly hiring a Crisis Management Team—is that the emails Mueller obtained were from Trump's *NatSec team* (so Flynn and K.T. McFarland, but also others we're not talking about much right now).



Natasha Bertrand:
Interesting point here by a former federal prosecutor: Mueller, as a government authority requesting emails sent on a gov server, may not even have needed a subpoena to obtain the emails because a basic administrative request may have sufficed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-has-obtained-tens-of-thousands-of-trump-transition-team-emails-2017-12



TheWellArmedLiberal:
Mueller should just tell them he got the emails from Julian Assange. Then they'll all be cool with it.


Pé Resists:
Trump team used government email system.

Emails are subject to subpoena and FOIA disclosure, per GSA policy.

Mueller requests emails. GSA provides emails.

Trump team screams foul play.

Next time read the fine print.



Joyce Alene:
Mueller hired the best prosecutors & appellate lawyers from DOJ career ranks. They will have acted well within the law & their access to Trump transition team emails will hold up in court, which is the place that will be judged, not on FOX News.


Oliver Willis:
Al Capone says Elliott Ness illegally obtained his financial records.
   2392. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:08 PM (#5593886)
It would be improper for Mueller to use the General Services Administration as a way to get his hands on emails that should have been reviewed by counsel first to see if they were privileged.

I don't see how GSA can turn that material over without notifying the WH so that the Trump team can raise whatever claim of privilege they might have. Indeed, there are published reports indicating that the WH had expected a request and had done some preliminary sorting. Seems rather unusual, but it's unknown if there's anything significant here. Mueller would certainly have to have more than another "process crime" for someone not remembering one of hundreds of e-mails about lawful activity. The downside here is that future incoming administrations may be less likely to use government communications for their transition. It's not like Mueller would have risked anything by notifying the WH, the GSA had control of all the material.
   2393. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:15 PM (#5593887)
Are you playing pedantic games with the word "testimony?" He tells what he knows to Mueller. Maybe even under oath.
To what end? If there's no crime, what purpose does it serve for Flynn (et al) to tell Mueller what he knows? Why would Mueller make a deal with Flynn for leniency in exchange for worthless statements?¹ Moreover, if all Mueller is interested in is finding out information about Trump's activities vis-à-vis Russia, then that's exactly what you argued he should be doing.



¹Note that such action by Flynn would not actually constitute "flipping on" Trump in the first place; that terminology implies that he's providing testimony (or other evidence) against Trump -- not just that he's gossiping about Trump's legal behavior.
   2394. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:20 PM (#5593888)

It's not like Mueller would have risked anything by notifying the WH, the GSA had control of all the material.
He would have risked tipping them off that he had all this information about their activities before he questioned them. The FBI's normal tactic is to learn everything about a topic first before interviewing targets, and then hope they lie because they don't know how much the FBI knows.
   2395. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:23 PM (#5593889)
Trump transition team counsel has said several times that the White House has cooperated fully with the Mueller investigation. Definitionally, that would include not lying about these (or any other) emails. Therefore, this will all be a big nothingburger.

Until then, though, Fox News is on full, amped-up "improperly obtained" red alert.
   2396. Greg K Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:28 PM (#5593890)
I need some unambiguous news!

Is this latest revelation evidence that Mueller's investigation is progressing? Or evidence that it is flailing and improper? Or it could it mean anything and we just need to wait and see?
   2397. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5593891)
It's merely an independent data point, impossible to make assumptions about. Like Jared Kushner hiring a political crisis PR team yesterday, or the Trump team publicly leaking a complaint letter they sent to Congress a day later.
   2398. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:39 PM (#5593892)
The downside here is that future incoming administrations may be less likely to use government communications for their transition.

One of Langhofer's requests in the letter to Congress was that the law be changed so that GSA would not do precisely what it just did. That is an odd request if Langhofer is trying to argue that Mueller behaved improperly, but the letter is a rhetorical mess anyway. It seems to have been sent to give Fox News something to chatter about.
   2399. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: December 16, 2017 at 09:39 PM (#5593893)
This would be a major blunder by Mueller that would further taint his investigation. It would be improper for Mueller to use the General Services Administration as a way to get his hands on emails that should have been reviewed by counsel first to see if they were privileged.


horse is out the door now. they can fire Mueller, and then the drip drip of the emails will come out, and if nothing else '18. Hey, Trump was totally justified firing the two guys investigating his campaign. We'll see if that holds when the GOP (lol) is in the wilderness.

It seems to have been sent to give Fox News something to chatter about.


what's RT.com got? The Fox News (at least late night and early morning) propaganda arm of the Trump admin is nauseating.
   2400. Shredder Posted: December 16, 2017 at 10:02 PM (#5593896)
flip
Page 24 of 27 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 26 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the weekend of July 21-22, 2018
(106 - 3:57am, Jul 22)
Last: GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag)

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(1355 - 2:03am, Jul 22)
Last: Jess Franco

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-20-2018
(24 - 12:46am, Jul 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (let's call it July 2018)
(616 - 12:24am, Jul 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogAgent: Mets should trade Jacob deGrom if not interested in long-term deal
(12 - 11:58pm, Jul 21)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogBaseball Is The Most Listened To Sport On Radio
(28 - 11:10pm, Jul 21)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(129 - 9:44pm, Jul 21)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3555 - 9:25pm, Jul 21)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogJack White’s Bat Inducted Into Baseball Hall Of Fame
(6 - 8:37pm, Jul 21)
Last: QLE

Gonfalon CubsLooking Forward
(45 - 7:45pm, Jul 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3268 - 7:32pm, Jul 21)
Last: The_Ex

NewsblogNow in Living Color: Ted Williams’s Last Game
(30 - 2:40pm, Jul 21)
Last: Morty Causa

Newsblog14 minutes of sound footage from the April 1931 Yankees-Red Sox season opener (YouTube)
(27 - 8:24am, Jul 21)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogStop! Collaborate and OMNICHATTER! for Friday, July 20, 2018.
(66 - 1:47am, Jul 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(95 - 10:52pm, Jul 20)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with Baby!)

Page rendered in 0.7626 seconds
46 querie(s) executed