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, April 16, 2018

OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser

“I guarantee you he didn’t just get three pitches and three strikes like his old man,” said O’Rourke.

He can afford a laugh, since he has dusted Cruz in fundraising by taking in an eye-popping $6.7 million in the first three months of this year. That’s more than twice the $3.2 million gathered by Cruz, whose tally counted money from multiple campaign entities including a political action committee.

O’Rourke won’t take PAC money, a stand that’s expected to put him at a fundraising disadvantage as the general election nears. He said Saturday that he and his supporters are “doing this 100 percent the right way. There are no political action committees, no corporations.

 

“It’s just the people, the people of Texas, and you all look awesome,” O’Rourke told supporters who filled The Long Time grounds with a laid-back vibe as they sipped beer, wine, lemonade or water, sitting on blankets, a small stand of bleachers and scattered chairs; children and amiable dogs milling around.

(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: April 16, 2018 at 08:18 AM | 1328 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics, strikeouts, texas

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 1 of 14 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5654551)
Worst.
   2. . Posted: April 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM (#5654560)
If his experts told him -- as he told Snuffleupagus they did -- that they couldn't do it, on what basis could he have said otherwise?


That's not the key question raised. There were a ####-ton of emails involved, so it's not that surprising that Comey's "experts" (*) would say they couldn't go through that many in such a short period of time. It was the logical and natural assumption. (**)

Yet, notwithstanding this report of the "experts," it took only a few days to go through them so thoroughly that Clinton was "re-exonerated."

So what changed between the "experts" saying it couldn't be done ... and it being done with room and time to spare?

A cynic might suggest that the review, much like the investigation itself, was truncated and ultimately perfunctory.

(*) Kind of odd terminology there; the "experts" would be FBI agents and/or DOJ lawyers, who would have to do the reviews.

(**) I noted the large number in real time.
   3. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5654563)

That's not the key question raised. There were a ####-ton of emails involved, so it's not that surprising that Comey's "experts" (*) would say they couldn't go through that many in such a short period of time. It was the logical and natural assumption. (**)

(*) Kind of odd terminology there; the "experts" would be FBI agents and/or DOJ lawyers, who would have to do the reviews.
No idea what's odd about it. Of course they were FBI employees; I don't know what that has to do with whether they're experts. They don't use the same guy who teaches firearms training or the guy who does surveillance of potential terrorists to do the examination of the computer; they use experts in computer forensics.

So what changed between the "experts" saying it couldn't be done ... and it being done with room and time to spare?

A cynic might suggest that the review, much like the investigation itself, was truncated and ultimately perfunctory.
Well, no. A troll would say that; cynics are cynical, not dishonest. An intelligent person would know that the experts found that the vast vast majority of the newly-discovered emails were duplicates of ones they already had, and they were able to narrow the field down to a few thousand emails, which they were able to review in a week and determine there was nothing of significance there.
   4. Scott Ross Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5654567)
Beto O’Rourke loves Guided By Voices, so he gets my vote.

Even if I do live in London.
   5. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5654573)
The Clinton campaign wasn't under investigation, was it? Hillary Clinton was personally under investigation, for her actions as Secretary of State, prior to the time when she was a presidential candidate.


Technically correct is the best kind of correct, so sure. There were two investigations involving the two major candidates and/or their campaigns, and commenting about them or not during the campaign season had the strong possibility of influencing the election.

I don't think the distinction makes even the tiniest bit of difference in the analysis. Comey still made the worst possible decision.

The problem with "no comment"ing on the Weiner emails is that if something damaging actually had come out of them, after Hillary had been elected, the political angst we're now going through would've seemed almost quaint by comparison. You would've had every ####### congressional panel right down to the House Agriculture Committee's subcommittee on soybean futures running two years worth of hearings on the FBI's "coverup".

That said, the more substantial FBI screwup, for which Comey deserves at least partial blame, was not realizing that those Weiner emails could be gone through thoroughly before the election, which as it turned out they were. If that had been realized at the time of Comey's "October Surprise", then he could've credibly held off making any public comment until all the vetting had been done, or alternately, he could've simply not even brought the whole matter to public attention (in the event there was nothing new in those emails, which there wasn't). But that would've been contingent upon his knowing that the vetting could be completed before November 8th, which apparently it wasn't, for reasons I'm not sure have ever been explained.


SO what? Not to be flip or anything but political aftermath from the election is NOT in Comey's purview. He has a responsibility to investigate (obviously). It is a long standing tradition to not comment on such investigations during election season. He broke that for one of the campaign/investigations and not the other.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say Comey made decisions to make himself look good and honorable and not actually act in an honorable fashion. It would have really hurt Comey's career to have "No comment", especially if Hillary had won. A man with the honor and integrity Comey pretends to would have done the right thing, even if it had hurt his career and reputation. Comey choose to try to save his reputation.
   6. . Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5654581)
No idea what's odd about it. Of course they were FBI employees; I don't know what that has to do with whether they're experts. They don't use the same guy who teaches firearms training or the guy who does surveillance of potential terrorists to do the examination of the computer; they use experts in computer forensics.


??

Substantive email reviews aren't done by computer forensics people.

An intelligent person would know that the experts found that the vast vast majority of the newly-discovered emails were duplicates of ones they already had, and they were able to narrow the field down to a few thousand emails, which they were able to review in a week and determine there was nothing of significance there.


No. An full actual substantive review of "a few thousand emails" and a check to see what was classified and how the emails wound up on a pervert's computer would take longer than a couple/three days. Far longer. Did Clinton know her rogue server emails were getting forwarded or provided to a pervert? Was she asked? Was Abedin? Was Weiner?

So, no, there was no basis whatever to truly "re-exonerate" her.
   7. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5654582)
Cohen Team: DOJ Can’t Review Seized Docs Because of ‘Impartiality’ Concerns

Interesting.

The authorities are biased against criminals, therefore they can not fairly investigate criminals.

Interesting.
   8. . Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5654583)
I don't think the distinction makes even the tiniest bit of difference in the analysis.


"One candidate was under criminal investigation and the other candidate wasn't under investigation of any kind" makes no "difference in the analysis"?

That seems ... odd. Why? Because it is ... odd.
   9. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5654586)
Substantive email reviews aren't done by computer forensics people.


But - a first pass to eliminate duplicates would. You do know it's pretty easy to compare one set of e-mails to another set and determine which from the subsequent set are not from the initial set, right?

No. An full actual substantive review of "a few thousand emails" would take longer than a couple/three days.


I suppose if one wishes to uncover pizza parties as coded talk about child sex trafficking... but not everybody buys your Alex Jones schtick.
   10. . Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5654587)
But - a first pass to eliminate duplicates would.


So? Duplicates were eliminated and there were still a bunch left. Plus interviews about the new questions raised by the new info. Etc. Not remotely possible to be done in a couple/three days unless its a prefab whitewash.

I suppose if one wishes to uncover pizza parties as coded talk about child sex trafficking... but not everybody buys your Alex Jones schtick.


Concession accepted.
   11. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5654590)
So?


So you don't need to substantively review e-mails that were previously substantively reviewed because a pretty straight-forward and simple digital wash has already determined and flagged X e-mails as previously reviewed.

Concession accepted.


Uh-huh.

It's funny, isn't it - between all the hacks, all the self-serving leaks delivered by Trump's House lapdogs, and Trump now having more than a year of the DOJ being his personal law firm....

We just don't have any equivalents of Jr's "I love it!".

Why is that?

   12. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5654592)
Every thread ever:

SBB: Here's some speculative thoughts sprinkled with haughty non-sequitur declaratives and the odd sociological tangent.
Everyone else: Here's actual reasons why what you say makes no sense. [Cites source, etc.]
SBB: Concession accepted!

Which makes this even funnier:
1540. Larvell B Posted: April 15, 2018 at 06:21 PM (#5654237)
His actions are bizarre, his self-image as The Only Honest Man is bizarre.
   13. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5654593)
From the previous thread:

That said, the more substantial FBI screwup, for which Comey deserves at least partial blame, was not realizing that those Weiner emails could be gone through thoroughly before the election, which as it turned out they were.

Comey is not a forensic computer examiner. If his experts told him -- as he told Snuffleupagus they did -- that they couldn't do it, on what basis could he have said otherwise?


Fair point. My comment here simply meant that the head of an organization ultimately bears some sort of responsibility for what goes out under its name.

If that had been realized at the time of Comey's "October Surprise", then he could've credibly held off making any public comment until all the vetting had been done,

People keep getting this wrong, so not to pick on Andy. (For once.) Comey didn't make a public comment. He sent a letter to Congress. Congress decided to make the letter public.


Another good point that I should have made explicit,** although once Comey's letter was transmitted to a hyper-partisan Republican-dominated Congress, the cat was out of the bag.

** I knew it but didn't think the distinction was all that important, for the reason just given. But you're right to call this to everyone's attention.
   14. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:47 PM (#5654596)

Every thread ever:

SBB: Here's some speculative thoughts sprinkled with haughty non-sequitur declaratives and the odd sociological tangent.
Everyone else: Here's actual reasons why what you say makes no sense. [Cites source, etc.]
SBB: Concession accepted!
This is wrong. It goes more like this:

SBB: Here's some speculative thoughts sprinkled with haughty non-sequitur declaratives and the odd sociological tangent.
SBB: These things (that I had previously posted as admitted speculation) are facts. (pause. edit.) Sprinkled with haughty non-sequitur declaratives and the odd sociological tangent.
Everyone else: Here's actual reasons why what you say makes no sense. [Cites source, etc.]
SBB: Concession accepted!
   15. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5654597)
The problem with "no comment"ing on the Weiner emails is that if something damaging actually had come out of them, after Hillary had been elected, the political angst we're now going through would've seemed almost quaint by comparison. You would've had every ####### congressional panel right down to the House Agriculture Committee's subcommittee on soybean futures running two years worth of hearings on the FBI's "coverup".

That said, the more substantial FBI screwup, for which Comey deserves at least partial blame, was not realizing that those Weiner emails could be gone through thoroughly before the election, which as it turned out they were. If that had been realized at the time of Comey's "October Surprise", then he could've credibly held off making any public comment** until all the vetting had been done, or alternately, he could've simply not even brought the whole matter to public attention (in the event there was nothing new in those emails, which there wasn't). But that would've been contingent upon his knowing that the vetting could be completed before November 8th, which apparently it wasn't, for reasons I'm not sure have ever been explained.


SO what? Not to be flip or anything but political aftermath from the election is NOT in Comey's purview. He has a responsibility to investigate (obviously). It is a long standing tradition to not comment on such investigations during election season. He broke that for one of the campaign/investigations and not the other.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say Comey made decisions to make himself look good and honorable and not actually act in an honorable fashion. It would have really hurt Comey's career to have "No comment", especially if Hillary had won. A man with the honor and integrity Comey pretends to would have done the right thing, even if it had hurt his career and reputation. Comey choose to try to save his reputation.


Except that if (a) Hillary had won, (b) Comey had not sent his letter to Congress, and (c) those emails had subsequently (i.e. after the election) revealed serious (if unintentional) breaches of national security, then the damage to the country would've been infinitely worse than the collateral damage to James Comey's career. We seem to be differing on the seriousness and relevance of that damage, and the degree to which the knowledge of that far greater damage impacted Comey's decision.

** Amended: See #13 above
   16. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5654598)
SBB’s performance of making up a ton of stuff over the last 100+ posts threatens to drown out last night’s shitpost from Our Objective Better, Esq.:

When Comey was sworn in as FBI director he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. By leaking documents he failed to do that. It is immoral to accept a job which requires one to behave up to certain standards and then disregard those standards.


Can this nonsense be the intro to every OTP? Part of me really does envy the complete lack of shame of these dopes.
   17. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:50 PM (#5654600)
@14: Pedantry accepted ;)
   18. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5654602)
Except that if (a) Hillary had won, (b) Comey had not sent his letter to Congress, and (c) those emails had subsequently (i.e. after the election) revealed serious (if unintentional) breaches of national security, then the damage to the country would've been infinitely worse than the collateral damage to James Comey's career. We seem to be differing on the seriousness and relevance of that damage, and the degree to which it impacted Comey's decision.


If this ... and that ... and also if the moon were blue and ... and ... and ...

Seriously Andy, no.

Comey's job was not concerning himself as Lord and Emperor of future US political comity. He is not responsible for determining "if X happens and not y, and the yahoos act like morons then things could get ugly." And his analysis is VERY suspect since it just so happened to serve the Myth of Comey.

I will let Digby take it from here: Link

Yes, that's all true. He thought she was going to win so he went out of his way to show his "independence" a week before the election. But the rules against doing that are there for a reason. He substituted his bad judgment for the judgment of the Department of Justice for his own sake. I don't think there's any other way to see it.


EDIT: None of which, as should be obvious to everyone except Stretchy and the Trumpkins (Band name? What genre?), excuses Trump in the slightest, or Hillary for that matter, and none of this depends on Trump having won. Comey handled his role poorly. All his CYA is not going to change that. In some ways it was a no win situation, but those happen, and when he went through his Kobayashi Maru he failed.
   19. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5654608)
Except that if (a) Hillary had won, (b) Comey had not sent his letter to Congress, and (c) those emails had subsequently (i.e. after the election) revealed serious (if unintentional) breaches of national security, then the damage to the country would've been infinitely worse than the collateral damage to James Comey's career. We seem to be differing on the seriousness and relevance of that damage, and the degree to which it impacted Comey's decision.

If this ... and that ... and also if the moon were blue and ... and ... and ...

Seriously Andy, no.

Comey's job was not concerning himself as Lord and Emperor of future US political comity. He is not responsible for determining "if X happens and not y, and the yahoos act like morons then things could get ugly." And his analysis is VERY suspect since it just so happened to serve the Myth of Comey.


Not much more to say other than YMMV, and that you clearly don't think the damage I described above should've been of any relevance. IMO you're reading way too much of Comey's ego into his decision, and not taking his reasoning nearly seriously enough. I realize my opinion may be a minority one here, particularly among many of Hillary's supporters (of which I was most definitely one), but I'm calling it as I see it.
   20. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:06 PM (#5654610)
In some ways it was a no win situation, but those happen, and when he went through his Kobayashi Maru he failed.

You kids and your Star Trek references! You're inciting my inner Neville Brand!
   21. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5654613)
Not much more to say other than YMMV, and that you clearly don't think the damage I described above should've been of any relevance.


Relevance to who? To the Head of the FBI? No, I really don't think the Head of the FBI should concern himself with months in the future potential non criminal political fallout. NOT HIS JOB.

"Gee, I couldn't investigate Trump, because in theory it might make him anxious and he could start WWIII. Better not to do my job according to rules and best practices. Right?"

The point is he doesn't get to consider that stuff. Those decisions are higher up the food chain than where he was. He had a job, a clear responsibility and he fumbled it, and you are buying his excuses - "Well gee, it might have caused some trouble in the future so I was limited, but I still felt good about inserting my editorial opinions during press conferences to the public on that other matter. In fact I totally had no choice!"
   22. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5654622)
So let's look forward and not back. How about some quick hits?

Big GOP Donor Now Backing Democrats
“Boston hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman lavished more than $7 million on Republican candidates and political committees during the Obama administration, using his fortune to help underwrite a GOP takeover of the federal government,” the Boston Globe reports.

“But the rise of Donald Trump shocked and dismayed Klarman, as did the timid response from the Republican-controlled House and Senate, which have acquiesced rather than challenge the president’s erratic and divisive ways. So, in an astonishing flip, Klarman, at one point New England’s most generous donor to Republicans, is taking his money elsewhere: He’s heaping cash on Democrats.”


And some more GOP-on-GOP violence - GOP Launches Secret Group to Attack Blankenship
“The Republican establishment has launched an emergency intervention in the West Virginia Senate primary aimed at stopping recently imprisoned coal baron Don Blankenship from winning the party’s nomination,” Politico reports.


But I am sure none of that will interfere with the GOP and their election machine in the upcoming contests ... Republicans Struggle to Make Tax Cuts a Winning Issue

Bloomberg: “Some recent polls show that the majority of Americans still don’t support the tax law, despite an uptick in sentiment since the end of 2017. And a special House election in a conservative district of Pennsylvania in March delivered an upset victory to the Democratic candidate, who’d framed the tax cuts as a giveaway to the wealthy.”


And ... yawn ... boring ... same old ... Democrats Hold Big Edge In Enthusiasm
The poll also shows Democrats with a significant advantage in enthusiasm, with 66% of Democrats expressing a high level of interest in November’s elections, versus 49% for Republicans.
   23. BDC Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5654631)
Hahahahaha {catches breath} hahahahahahaha … stop, you're killing me:

The effort to build high-speed trains connecting Dallas, Arlington and Fort Worth — and eventually Waco, Austin, Laredo and possibly Monterrey, Mexico — took a step forward Thursday.

The Regional Transportation Council, the official planning body for 16 North Texas counties, on Thursday approved $500,000 to continue studying the proposal, which has been in the works for several years.

The move comes as officials from Texas Central Railway continue with their plans to build a bullet train from Dallas to Houston, making it possible to travel between those cities in about 90 minutes. That project would use technology created by the operators of the world-renowned high-speed rail system in Japan.

Meadows said high-speed rail companies from France and China are interested in building a line that serves cities along the I-35 corridor, including Waco, Austin, San Antonio and beyond. The line could eventually extend to Laredo and south of the border to Monterrey, Mexico.


If such trains exist in my lifetime, I will eat a miniature straw hat. Maybe even a full-size one. I could probably use the fiber by that point anyway.
   24. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5654633)
Whoah....

The special election for an Arizona House seat is in a statistical dead heat in the final week of the race, according to a poll released on Monday.

A poll from Emerson College found physician Hiral Tipirneni (D) narrowly leading with 46 percent, compared to former state Sen. Debbie Lesko (R), who is at 45 percent — well within the poll’s margin of error.


This one would be a shocker.

Unlike PA-18, there's no 'traditional union Democrat' constituency. Tipierneni likewise hasn't been anything near the fundraising juggernaut of other D challengers - not that she's fared poorly in fundraising (indeed, she's outraised Lesko), just that she's not raking in Lamb/Ossich/etc money.

I still don't see this one going team blue's way - I think this is Arpaio country and it's a very old, very white district.... but wow. If the GOP loses this one? It would be a disaster.

I don't know how much more alarmed the GOP could be - perhaps the alarm is already maxed out.... but yowza.

Still don't think I'd take any less than 10-1 odds - and this poll may well be an outlier... but I repeat. Yowza.
   25. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5654636)
Not much more to say other than YMMV, and that you clearly don't think the damage I described above should've been of any relevance.

Relevance to who? To the Head of the FBI? No, I really don't think the Head of the FBI should concern himself with months in the future potential non criminal political fallout. NOT HIS JOB.


Again, YMMV. I think Comey was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and made a horrible decision that was more horrible in hindsight than it was at the time he had to make it. Reducing it to a narrow definition of "HIS JOB" doesn't IMO end the discussion. I think the "JOB" of an FBI director is a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.
   26. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5654640)
My buddy and I made the fairly long drive (about 3 hours) over to the dry side of the state to visit the Hanford Reach Monument this weekend. That's not our report but it's the same route we took and that sand dune he's standing on is pretty neat.

From the monument you can see some of the Hanford site buildings on the other side of the Columbia, but mostly it's just wide open space and whipping winds. You can see why this site was chosen for the reactors, as even in 2018 there isn't much around -- some fruit farms, some recreation around the river and that's about it. My dad was a reactor operator for most of his life so the site had some additional interest for me. From my reading it appears that the actual process of extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel (for bombs) created the most toxic, hazardous waste and most of it was simply pumped into double walled concrete and steel holding tanks -- many of which are now leaking or otherwise structurally unsound.

The plan, as I've learned is to melt down the waste and mix it with chemicals to turn in into "nuclear glass" and then store it for 40 years, until it can safely be handled (or more safely) in stainless steel tubes on site. The goal for the rest of the site is to basically make it "down to slab" which means removing everything, including the all the radioactive equipment and just leaving the concrete slabs the buildings were built on.

This processing plant, which is by the far the most difficult engineering product the DoE is working on, was initially planned to cost around 4 billion and be completed in 2008. It has now ballooned to over 8 billion (some estimates have it costing up to 14 before it's all said and done) and an ETA of completion in 2019. The difficulty mostly comes from the various states the waste is in. Some of it is solid, some of it is sludge, some of it is liquid, and some of it is gas. And the plant has to be able to process all of it safely -- if a pipe gets jammed there is a very real possibility of an explosion (from hydrogen gas buildup from the water used to cool the materials) or even a criticality if too much fissionable material gets too close together.

Currently there is a "radioactive plume" of material this leaking towards the Columbia. While levels in the river itself are not worrying there is a chance that within the next 5-15 years the plume will make it to the river and be carried downstream. Obviously this is an intolerable outcome for Oregon and Washington and there is concern that the DoE is not up to the task of cleaning up the waste. Some of the articles I read last night seem to think that the only way to get the site cleaned up is to put the DoD back on the job -- it is after all their waste.

Further complicating the overall cleanup if that Hanford was used as a dumping ground for not only waste produced on site (it is estimated that almost the entire US nuclear arsenal contains plutonium from Hanford!), which is massive, but also for other US nuclear programs. There are dozens of highly radioactive decommissioned US nuclear submarines stored on site as well as the tools and machines used to process the ships (cutting them apart for storage).

The most fascinating story from my research was that during the cleanup in the mid aughts a jar of plutonium suspended in solution was found while cleaning up one of the "graveyards" of buried tools and other materials. The material was dated to even earlier than Hanford, probably from Oak Ridge reactor, where it was sent to Hanford for analysis.
   27. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:38 PM (#5654642)
“Boston hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman lavished more than $7 million on Republican candidates and political committees during the Obama administration, using his fortune to help underwrite a GOP takeover of the federal government,” the Boston Globe reports.

“But the rise of Donald Trump shocked and dismayed Klarman, as did the timid response from the Republican-controlled House and Senate, which have acquiesced rather than challenge the president’s erratic and divisive ways. So, in an astonishing flip, Klarman, at one point New England’s most generous donor to Republicans, is taking his money elsewhere: He’s heaping cash on Democrats.”

Republican donor puts country above party. May his tribe go forth and multiply, with their offspring prematurely entering the world in late October at age 18 and already pre-registered to vote.

The Republicans can then pivot to argue for late term abortions.
   28. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5654649)
I am concerned with the politicization of the FBI (and other intelligence/police agencies). Maybe when confronted by a dilemma such as Comey was, it would be best if the director and his agency put the investigation on hiatus until after the election. Not just be silent about it, but not investigate. Yes, I know there may be cases of emergencies and real threats to the country's security that wouldn't make do so feasible. Also, leaders of these agencies aren't obligated to go public. There's entirely too much vetting of everything in the public media. I don't think Mueller did this as director and he isn't doing so now in his special position. He should be emulated. Only local DA's try cases in public, and that's because they're elected officials. Heads of national intelligence agencies aren't. They should stay mum in public most of the time.
   29. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5654664)
Again, YMMV. I think Comey was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and made a horrible decision that was more horrible in hindsight than it was at the time he had to make it.

I also believe some of this was to get in front of leaks. There is not an insignificant chance that someone from the FBI was going to leak this. Comey would have looked like he was in Hillary's pocket if that came out. I think the FBI and Comey were not aware how long this would take. Most of the emails were copies, so the investigation was quick.
   30. zenbitz Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5654685)

MarketWatch pens a love letter to the retiring Paul Ryan

But I think Ryan’s true legacy is more monumental than that. When our democracy was in crisis, when the fabric of our nation was being ripped apart by the president, Paul Ryan thought only of his own political goals. He abdicated his duty.
   31. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5654689)
Again, YMMV. I think Comey was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and made a horrible decision that was more horrible in hindsight than it was at the time he had to make it.

I also believe some of this was to get in front of leaks. There is not an insignificant chance that someone from the FBI was going to leak this. Comey would have looked like he was in Hillary's pocket if that came out.


Very good point. We seem almost to have forgotten the leaks that came from the New York office** in the final days before the election, with the clear intent of damaging Clinton. The idea that the FBI was / is some sort of hotbed of Clinton supporters has got to be one of the more risible memes I've ever seen offered.

**
There is, after all, a strong case to be made that elements of the FBI have indeed leaked sensitive information aimed at shaping our political outcomes. But for all the GOP's fear-mongering about a supposed "deep state" working against Trump, he wasn't the FBI faction's target but instead its beneficiary.

Cast your mind back to the closing days of the 2016 election. The Wall Street Journal published detailed stories about divisions within the bureau over the handling of the investigations into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and her foundation; around the same time, Fox News, citing sources "with intimate knowledge of what's going on with the FBI investigations," reported that the FBI was on the verge of issuing an indictment into the bureau's investigation into the foundation. (Fox subsequently retracted the report.) "Taken together, it's easy to come away with the conclusion that the FBI is out to get Hillary Clinton," Vox's Yochi Dreazen reported two days before the election, adding that the truth is "far more complicated," that it wasn't the bureau as an agency targeting Clinton but a faction within it: "Experts who study the FBI believe the leaks are coming from a small clique of agents who profoundly distrust Clinton and believe she deserves to be punished for what they see as a long record of ethically dubious behavior."
   32. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5654691)
Heading to Philly at the end of this week for the first time in 6 years or so and for the first time since 2003 in terms of really exploring the city. Wanted to go to Vetri's but it appeared it is fully booked and this late of a date. Would also like to go to a BYOB. Heard Helm is nice. Going to be going to Dalessandro's and Chubby's for cheesesteaks. Any other places a must try in Philly right now or just a good place to have a good cocktail and interesting food?
   33. . Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5654697)
The idea that the FBI was / is some sort of hotbed of Clinton supporters has got to be one of the more risible memes I've ever seen offered.


That's not "the meme." The rank and file clearly aren't a hotbed of Clinton supporters. But of course the people at issue are the senior political leadership and their like-minded retinue. That would include Comey, McCabe, Page, Strzok, etc. -- at least.
   34. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5654709)
That's not "the meme."


Trump good. Clinton bad.

Rinse. Repeat.
   35. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5654712)
Trump good. Clinton bad.


Thanks Obama!
   36. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5654713)
Mouse, #1663 of previous thread:
In other news there is a minor squabble between Democrats in California ... no, wait, it is a bit more serious than that - Speakership drama pits McCarthy vs. Ryan.
Tensions over who will succeed Speaker Paul Ryan are starting to torment House Republicans as they enter one of the most difficult midterm election cycles in years.

Allies of Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the current favorite for the job, are upset that Ryan insists on staying through the election. They think the delay can only hurt McCarthy’s chances and might mean a months-long power struggle in the House Republican Conference in the thick of election season.

The relationship between McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) remains frosty. Scalise endorsed his more senior colleague on Friday after his hand was forced by Ryan, but the Louisiana lawmaker remains interested in the speakership if McCarthy can’t round up the votes.

And then there's the House Freedom Caucus. The group on Friday sent the majority leader a blunt warning that he doesn't have the votes when one of the group’s ringleaders, Rep. Jim Jordan, floated that he might run for speaker himself. Jordan couldn’t win. But he could deny McCarthy votes from the Freedom Caucus that he can’t become speaker without.
Snore. Let us know when the divide in Republican leadership approaches the Pelosi-Hoyer split.
   37. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5654715)
Cohen seeks to withhold identity of mystery client
President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, told a federal judge Monday that he had three legal clients in the past year — the president, GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy and a third client whose identity he asked to keep secret.

Lawyers for Cohen filed the letter Monday morning as they prepare for a 2 p.m. hearing to discuss legal issues surrounding an FBI search last week of Cohen’s office, home and hotel room....

So who's that unidentified third client?

You can't make this up.

Before the third name was revealed, here was the lawyers' reasoning:

Lawyers for Cohen — whose business records were seized by FBI agents April 9 — said the unnamed client had told Cohen not to disclose his name and that they believe Cohen had a duty not to disclose his name.

They also said that if Cohen's clients, other than Trump, were publicly revealed, it is "likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client

I'm not so sure they'd be embarrassed. These folks don't even know the meaning of the word.
   38. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5654719)
More on the same non-topic. Sudden retirements and the depth chart are discussed:

Washington Post: If Kevin McCarthy wants to be speaker, this may be his biggest obstacle
In the race to succeed Paul D. Ryan as House speaker, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has one major enemy: time.

McCarthy (R-Calif.) became the clear front-runner to move up one spot ...But McCarthy has been here before. He was the prohibitive favorite to succeed John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) in 2015 when he announced his resignation, but McCarthy wilted under pressure from conservatives and withdrew from contention. That campaign was just 13 days. This one is slated to last at least seven months.

...If the GOP keeps the House, McCarthy may be challenged by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a staunch conservative in the House Freedom Caucus. Assuming all Democrats vote for one of their own, Jordan could effectively deny McCarthy a simple majority if he can hold two dozen conservatives to his side. That’s the sort of showdown that could serve as a negotiating tactic: Just enough conservatives can hold out support until McCarthy gives in to their demands on process and policy issues.

...Amid all that uncertainty, there’s another major issue that Republicans have to confront: They have almost no bench.

...After [McCarthy and Scalise], the Republican ranks are quite thin. Very few members of the GOP caucus have the necessary combination of ambition and stature.

Almost half of the committee chairs beat Ryan to the punch and already announced their retirement. Term limits were set to kick in, and they also recognized that committee work is not valued the way it used to be. ...This leaves Republicans without one of their preferred go-to players in a crisis: the seasoned committee chairman taking charge from outside the faltering leadership team.

Ryan served that role after McCarthy could not get enough support to take over from Boehner, jumping from his chairmanship of the influential Ways and Means Committee to the speaker’s office. In 2006, Boehner won the race to become House majority leader after a successful run chairing the Education and Workforce Committee, promising to clean up an ethically challenged leadership team. He went on to become minority leader and then speaker in 2011. The party also went with a committee chairman in November 1998, when Bob Livingston of Louisiana won the internal Republican vote to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker after a four-year run chairing the Appropriations Committee. But that time, it didn’t last long — Livingston backed out a few weeks later after revelations about a past affair arrived amid Republicans’ push for impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about an affair.

Today, there is no Chairman Ryan or Chairman Boehner — or even Livingston.
   39. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5654723)
Out of my continuing disappointment over HBO's failure to fill the gap between GoT seasons -- Silicon Valley has become so dreadfully repetitive that it's nearly unwatchable, and I'm really, really struggling to understand all the love being heaped on Barry -- I marathoned Veep...

And it's uncanny - Jonah Ryan's Jeffersonians (or Libertonians, probably) caucus is so like the House Freedom caucus it's scary.
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5654729)
I'm really, really struggling to understand all the love being heaped on Barry

It's had its moments, but this had better be a case where the whole turns out to be better than the sum of its parts.
   41. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5654731)
I'm starting to think that our system needs to bring back the pork system of lawmaking. Ever since they did away with riders for districts the actual party leaders have gained more and more control over our elected leaders. Giving districts the pork helped beholden the politician to the district instead of to his party. We now have more and more purity test votes and any politician bucking the system gets abandoned by the party.
   42. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5654732)

So who's that unidentified third client?

You can't make this up.

Before the third name was revealed, here was the lawyers' reasoning:


So Sean Hannity got pregnant when he and Trump were talking Iraq during their pillow sessions?

   43. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5654735)
Sending out thoughts and prayers to all:

Donald Trump: "Attorney-client privilege is dead!"

Sean Hannity: "Journalism is dead."

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton: "The obstruction investigation against President Trump is dead."
   44. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5654737)
Michael Cohen: "I wish I were dead"

Cohen's "clients": "We wish you were, too"
   45. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5654738)
Vlad Putin: "I can help with that"
   46. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5654740)
I assume Hannity disclosed this information voluntarily since he was covering the Cohen events on his show.
   47. zenbitz Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5654741)
This has to be fake news; I don't believe Hannity could be embarrassed by ANYTHING.
   48. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5654745)
Trump puts the brakes on new Russian sanctions, reversing Haley’s announcement

It is like they are not even trying to look innocent anymore.
   49. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5654747)
So who do think Hannity ######, harassed, or impregnated?

Why else engage the boutique firm of Payum, Augh, & Kwiatley?
   50. Tom T Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5654750)
I'm starting to think that our system needs to bring back the pork system of lawmaking. Ever since they did away with riders for districts the actual party leaders have gained more and more control over our elected leaders. Giving districts the pork helped beholden the politician to the district instead of to his party. We now have more and more purity test votes and any politician bucking the system gets abandoned by the party.


Yeah, earmarks were terribly useful, and tended to produce more "local" political benefit. As you describe, it provided a means for the local rep to benefit his constituency regardless of whatever his party leader wanted. We certainly benefited from John T. Myers bringing in a LOT of pork to do the railroad relocation that cleaned up (and darn well may have saved) Lafayette's downtown. That type of federal funding does not appear to be funneling to smaller communities these days.
   51. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5654751)
Normally I would think Haley would have to resign after this but this is generally par for the course for the Trump administration.
   52. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5654752)
If they're back to throwing Clinton-Email-Server-Gate #### at the fan in hopes of distracting people, they're well and truly terrified.
   53. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5654755)

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton: "The obstruction investigation against President Trump is dead."
I only learned a month or two ago -- not that I had spent more than 0.5 seconds worth of brain time contemplating it -- that Fitton isn't a lawyer. I had just assumed he was because his predecessor, crazy Larry Klayman, was. But Fitton isn't.
   54. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5654768)
I only learned a month or two ago -- not that I had spent more than 0.5 seconds worth of brain time contemplating it -- that Fitton isn't a lawyer. I had just assumed he was because his predecessor, crazy Larry Klayman, was. But Fitton isn't.


The question of relevance is how are you going to deal with a 25-30% base of the populace who are too stupid to realize they're stupid, and thus believe Trump and his lackey's like Fitton? Because you're going to have to deal with them eventually, and they're not going to go quietly just because their heroes are venal, evil cnvts.
   55. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5654771)

I'm starting to think that our system needs to bring back the pork system of lawmaking. Ever since they did away with riders for districts the actual party leaders have gained more and more control over our elected leaders. Giving districts the pork helped beholden the politician to the district instead of to his party. We now have more and more purity test votes and any politician bucking the system gets abandoned by the party.
Wow. This couldn't be more wrong if SBB had written it. Your understanding is completely backwards. Earmarks were a way for the party to control individual members of Congress: if you wanted your earmarks for your district, you played ball. Because there are no more earmarks, it has tremendously weakened the party's influence over individual legislators; the party has no leverage.
   56. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5654773)
the party has no leverage.

And yet they have complete leverage over them. In the old days it was "why should I vote for this? What does it do for my district". Nowadays it is vote for this bill that does absolutely nothing for your district, possibly even hurt it, or else we'll primary you.
   57. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5654777)
And yet they have complete leverage over them. In the old days it was "why should I vote for this? What does it do for my district". Nowadays it is vote for this bill that does absolutely nothing for your district, possibly even hurt it, or else we'll primary you.


In the case of the Republicans, this is primarily due to them ceasing to be a party with legislative goals, or of politicians with goals associated with "my district." They're pure ideology now. The leverage point is no longer "you won't get those roads paved in your district" but "we'll primary you with a crazier fool."
   58. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5654778)
And yet they have complete leverage over them. In the old days it was "why should I vote for this? What does it do for my district". Nowadays it is vote for this bill that does absolutely nothing for your district, possibly even hurt it, or else we'll primary you.
No, it doesn't work that way. The leadership does not primary sitting members of Congress. It's outside groups that do that. The only thing the party leadership can do is restrict the flow of national funds (i.e., the the NRCC or the DCCC) to the individual legislator -- but that's a lot less potent a threat than it used to be, because so much fundraising goes on entirely outside the party apparatus. Directly by the individual legislature and by outside groups.
   59. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5654780)
Which way have votes gone? Have votes been more or less along party lines since removing earmarks? From what I recall we have moved more towards party lines since removing them. If earmarks gave the party leverage and now they don't have that leverage why are voters going more and more along party lines?
   60. dlf Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5654786)
Which way have votes gone? Have votes been more or less along party lines since removing earmarks?


We have seen less cross-party voting in Congress since the introduction of the Wild Card. Clearly we need to abolish that abomination! Either that, or you may be a tad guilty of assuming correlation equals causation.
   61. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:45 PM (#5654789)
Lawyers for Cohen — whose business records were seized by FBI agents April 9 — said the unnamed client had told Cohen not to disclose his name and that they believe Cohen had a duty not to disclose his name.

They also said that if Cohen's clients, other than Trump, were publicly revealed, it is "likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client

I'm not so sure they'd be embarrassed. These folks don't even know the meaning of the word.


I think a lot of people would be embarrassed if people found out Cohen was their lawyer.
   62. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:46 PM (#5654790)
Sure, except there is little reason to think the baseball playoffs means much to how Congress votes but there is ample reason to think entitlements and the flow of money has an influence on how Congress votes.
   63. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5654792)
The revelation should put Fox News in an ethical dilemma. I doubt they'll see it that way but it is unethical that Hannity talked about this on air without full disclosure.
   64. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 16, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5654795)
From #FakeNewsCNN:
"I've known Michael a long, long time. Let me be very clear to the media. Michael never represented me in any matter. I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer. I never received an invoice from Michael. I never paid legal fees to Michael," Hannity said.

"But I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective," he added. "And I assume that those conversations were attorney-client confidential."
Which leads the obvious question: If he never retained him and never paid him anything, *are* the conversations confidential? If I have a conversation with a lawyer at a party or whatever, is *that* covered by privilege? I wouldn't think so, but there is much I do not know.
------------
ETA: McCoy has another good point. Time Warner/CNN and Disney/ABC are always putting out little disclaimers about parent companies. Are these required in any legal sense, or just nice-to-dos?
   65. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5654798)
The revelation should put Fox News in an ethical dilemma.


Fox. "Ethical." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHWWHHAHHHAHHWWHAHAHAHHWAHWAAA!!!!
   66. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5654799)
So Netflix is spending 8 billion dollars this year on new content. Let's say that the average between all three of their subscription tiers is $10 and they just added 7.4 million new subscribers in the last quarter so that is $880,000,000 more in revenue for them. If they keep that up that is something like 2 billion dollars extra in revenue this year. I don't think this is a sustainable growth model.
   67. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5654800)
If Hannity never retained Cohen, never received an invoice, and never had him represent him in any manner, he is not his attorney. Why would attorney-client privilege be applicable?

   68. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5654810)
Cohen could say he gave pro bono advice?
   69. Zonk is One Individual Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5654815)
So Netflix is spending 8 billion dollars this year on new content. Let's say that the average between all three of their subscription tiers is $10 and they just added 7.4 million new subscribers in the last quarter so that is $880,000,000 more in revenue for them. If they keep that up that is something like 2 billion dollars extra in revenue this year. I don't think this is a sustainable growth model.


Sustainable or not, like I said i/r/t the Lost in Space reboot -- they're certainly spending it. Even if the series is rather middling, the production qualities of it alone make it worth a watch.

I cannot help but wonder if at some point, Hollywood blockbusters start to suffer? I think there will always be a place for 'good' movies coming out Hollywood, going to the theater, etc.

But - at this point? Game of Thrones... Lost in Space... Amazon apparently is doing what looks to be a high budget LOTR series. The special effects and production quality of things being produced on subscription services or premium cable rivals what you'd previously only get from a summer blockbuster.

   70. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:34 PM (#5654817)
This is dumb, but no dumber than anything else that's happened in the last couple years:
Trump has not sent out even one tweet fighting back. This is even more curious given that, as The New York Times has documented, Trump has lashed out on Twitter at nearly 450 "people, places and things" since his 2016 campaign through today.

And Trump has shown no hesitation to go after actors who have criticized him, from Alec Baldwin to Meryl Streep, who didn't even criticize Trump by name at an awards show in January 2017 but still Trump knew she was talking about him.

Why is Trump seemingly so afraid of De Niro? Could it be because they are both about the same age and from New York, so perhaps Trump fears if he goes after De Niro, he can expect a no holds barred street brawl?
Trump saw Untouchables, and is afraid De Niro will club him with a bat. He also both Godfather movies, and is pretty sure Vito can time travel *and* order people's deaths. He also saw Raging Bull and remembers De Niro's pledge to punch him in the face.
   71. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5654821)

Which leads the obvious question: If he never retained him and never paid him anything, *are* the conversations confidential? If I have a conversation with a lawyer at a party or whatever, is *that* covered by privilege? I wouldn't think so, but there is much I do not know.
Contrary to the Hollywood cliché in which the lawyer says, "Give me a dollar," and then when the person does the lawyer says, "Okay, now I'm your lawyer and this is privileged," money has nothing to do with anything. Attorney client privilege turns on whether the communication was for the purpose of getting legal advice, not based on whether any formalities were observed. To be sure, if the putative client is clear that the attorney was not representing him -- e.g., when all of you losers here at OTP ask me about a legal issue and I give an answer -- then it would not be privileged. But the mere fact that the client didn't pay or didn't sign a retainer agreement is irrelevant. So, yeah, if Hannity (reasonably) "assume[d] that those conversations were attorney-client confidential," then they would be.
   72. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:52 PM (#5654823)
e.g., when all of you losers here at OTP ask me about a legal issue and I give an answe

Hey, I think he's talking about me. Well I never.
   73. dlf Posted: April 16, 2018 at 05:57 PM (#5654827)
Money having nothing to do with anything? Hannity reasonably assuming anything? Not sure which of David's statements are more laughable.

But of course he is right about payment not being required to cause an attorney-client privilege to attach. A statement made when considering whether to retain an attorney is privileged as are statements made by pro bono clients and clients whose fees are paid by third parties such as when an insurance company defends Andy for causing a wreck while driving with his knees.
   74. Srul Itza Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:01 PM (#5654829)
Cohen could say he gave pro bono advice?



I thought all his work was pro boner?

   75. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:07 PM (#5654831)
If I have a conversation with a lawyer at a party or whatever, is *that* covered by privilege? I wouldn't think so, but there is much I do not know.

Contrary to the Hollywood cliché in which the lawyer says, "Give me a dollar," and then when the person does the lawyer says, "Okay, now I'm your lawyer and this is privileged," money has nothing to do with anything. Attorney client privilege turns on whether the communication was for the purpose of getting legal advice, not based on whether any formalities were observed.
Thanks, David. So I gather I was wrong, essentially, about the party scenario - if I ask how to handle some HOA problem or custody issue, and end up taking that advice, the conversation could be construed to be privileged. No wonder lawyers get annoyed at getting cornered at parties - that's money left on the floor! Seriously, though, good to know. Would it be the same for medical advice?

So that leads to additional topics of interest re: Hannity. How good a buddy would you typically be, to hand out free legal advice? If they *were* legal issues of sufficient import that Cohen considers Hannity a "client", why *didn't* they have a formalized relationship? I'm guessing most lawyers don't wander around providing expertise pro bono. What was Cohen getting out of the relationship?

It may not be technically illegal, but something sure smells weird about this whole love triangle.

----------
Cohen could say he gave pro bono advice?

I thought all his work was pro boner?
The affair/pregnancy stuff would clearly be post boner.
   76. canadian shield Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:07 PM (#5654832)
I thought all his work was pro boner?


Seems more like pro bozo
   77. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:07 PM (#5654833)
He worked for Trump, which makes his contributions pro bozo,
   78. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:10 PM (#5654834)
Seems more like pro bonzo.


Next.
   79. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:16 PM (#5654838)
Srul, #74:
Cohen could say he gave pro bono advice?

I thought all his work was pro boner?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-cT58rgNc
   80. perros Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:20 PM (#5654841)
Trump saw Untouchables, and is afraid De Niro will club him with a bat. He also both Godfather movies, and is pretty sure Vito can time travel *and* order people's deaths. He also saw Raging Bull and remembers De Niro's pledge to punch him in the face.

Afraid of the Deep State
   81. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:28 PM (#5654843)
But of course he is right about payment not being required to cause an attorney-client privilege to attach. A statement made when considering whether to retain an attorney is privileged as are statements made by pro bono clients and clients whose fees are paid by third parties such as when an insurance company defends Andy for causing a wreck while driving with his knees.

Now who in the #### leaked that information?

And anyway, it's fake news. Anyone who's been in a car with me knows that I use only one knee to drive. Nobody in their right mind uses two knees to steer a car. The other knee is always needed to hold your meal.
   82. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5654845)
Actor-magician Harry Anderson (best known from "Night Court") has died.
   83. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5654847)
Actor-magician Harry Anderson (best known from "Night Court") has died.
That stinks, he was relatively young (65). For some reason I would mix him up with Dave Foley, I think because he (Anderson) did a show that was more or less him playing Dave Barry.

   84. zenbitz Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5654848)
If they keep that up that is something like 2 billion dollars extra in revenue this year. I don't think this is a sustainable growth model.


I presume if they make content they can license it to comcast/youtube/amazon/google/baidu/make dvds or whomever.
   85. dlf Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5654849)
#83 - I always loved his cameos on Cheers, but Night Court was a fun show too. And at the risk of making this off topic post vaguely related to baseball, the original (?) defense attorney had the duet with Meatloaf on Phil Rizzuto's ode to scoring.
   86. Lassus Posted: April 16, 2018 at 06:48 PM (#5654850)
Actor-magician Harry Anderson (best known from "Night Court") has died.

That one hurts.
   87. BDC Posted: April 16, 2018 at 07:21 PM (#5654872)
Any other places a must try in Philly right now or just a good place to have a good cocktail and interesting food?

Mama Marie’s in Pitman NJ has the best hoagies I’ve ever eaten. (19 miles from City Hall.)

Now, there is literally no other reason to go to South Jersey, and there is no ambiance in Pitman; but given that you were thinking of places for cheesesteaks, you seem to have an interest in local specialities. Normally I would not advise a food professional to get a takeaway sandwich from the middle of nowhere, but these hoagies are celebrated :)
   88. Laser Man Posted: April 16, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5654887)
So Netflix is spending 8 billion dollars this year on new content. Let's say that the average between all three of their subscription tiers is $10 and they just added 7.4 million new subscribers in the last quarter so that is $880,000,000 more in revenue for them. If they keep that up that is something like 2 billion dollars extra in revenue this year. I don't think this is a sustainable growth model.
Well, Netflix did report profits of $290M in Q1 2018, on revenues of $3.7B. With a total of 125M subscribers, that would average to $30/subscriber, but as others have stated, they have more revenue streams than just subscriber fees.
   89. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:09 PM (#5654894)
Thus Lynch's "refer to it as a matter, Jim, not an investigation."


Lynch might as well have been speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Note:

Lynch had to recuse herself because the public was aware that she had compromised her partiality in favor of Hillary.

That left it to Comey, who has now admitted that he was basing his actions (subconsciously!) on the polling.

Thus professionalism was in short supply. Getting people at the DOJ and the FBI to handle this in a professional manner was too tall an order. To say nothing of Strzok/Page.

But for the TDSers... nothing to see here. It never is.
   90. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:12 PM (#5654896)
When Comey was sworn in as FBI director he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. By leaking documents he failed to do that. It is immoral to accept a job which requires one to behave up to certain standards and then disregard those standards.

Yes, indeed he took such an oath. Note: not an oath to Trump. Which part of the constitution did he violate with his actions?


He violated his oath of office. You pretend not to understand this. Here, maybe
Turley can help you:

Rosenstein cited former attorneys general, judges and leading prosecutors who believed Comey “violated his obligation to ’preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the Department and the FBI” and “violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition.” Rosenstein added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.”
   91. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5654914)
People shouldn't get preferential treatment under the law because they're running for high office.


Elementary, yet, sadly, for the TDSers it depends on, as TGF often says: WIDWTW.
   92. Srul Itza Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:06 PM (#5654925)
I stopped liking "sit-coms" quite some time ago, with some exceptions, but I liked Night Court.

To my mind, it was less situation comedy, and more theater of the absurd. But for me, it worked.

Ave atque Vale, Harry Anderson. Only 2 years older than me -- hell yeah, way too young.
   93. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:07 PM (#5654926)

He violated his oath of office. You pretend not to understand this.
I don't pretend not to understand it; I tell you that you're wrong. Which is probably why you didn't quote said oath. Instead, you quoted Turley quoting Rosenstein quoting other people saying that Comey violated an "obligation" to protect "traditions of the Department." But his oath wasn't to departmental tradition.

Moreover, you have pulled an Andy, changing the topic. Your claim was that by leaking documents, Comey failed to support and defend the Constitution. I asked which part of the constitution he violated, and you dodged the question.
   94. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:13 PM (#5654933)

Lynch had to recuse herself because the public was aware that she had compromised her partiality in favor of Hillary.
Not only did Lynch not "have to" recuse herself, but she didn't recuse herself. That's what led to the whole Comey situation. When the AG recuses her(him)self, it looks like what happened with Sessions: the Deputy AG (Rosenstein) takes over that matter. Lynch didn't do that; instead, she announced that she'd accept whatever the FBI said. That's why Comey was put in the position of making the decision/announcement that Hillary wouldn't be prosecuted. If there were someone at DOJ supervising the situation, Comey could've passed the buck to that person.
   95. . Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5654934)
Lynch didn't do that; instead, she announced that she'd accept whatever the FBI said.


Then she acted in complete dereliction of duty. Recusal would have been better.

The FBI is not supposed to make decisions of prosecutorial discretion, of the phony kind Comey outlined. That's Justice's role. The lawyers at Justice do not defer on legal questions and decisions re prosecution to FBI agents; indeed, the idea is preposterous.

Like Ray said, the thing was handled unprofessionally and improperly on a multitude of levels.
   96. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:19 PM (#5654935)
If Hannity never retained Cohen, never received an invoice, and never had him represent him in any manner, he is not his attorney. Why would attorney-client privilege be applicable?


No, that premise is incorrect. An attorney-client relationship can be present without any formal structure being in place -- e.g., an engagement letter, an invoice, etc.

Cohen need not have "represented" Hannity in a formal proceeding or business dealing or transaction or such to be his lawyer; Cohen may have simply provided him with legal advice. Even if the legal advice is provided informally it _could_ still trigger an a-c relationship.

Now, Hannity and Cohen seem to have different ideas as to whether Cohen could be described as Hannity's lawyer. This could be because Cohen understands what triggers an a-c relationship and Hannity doesn't. (Not that I have much faith that Cohen understands that either, sadly, given the mess Cohen has made of the Stormy situation... but at least arguably.)
   97. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:21 PM (#5654937)
In news from the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller - Many News Stories On Trump-Russia Probe Are Wrong:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office is warning that “many” news articles on the Trump-Russia probe have been wrong. The statement from a spokesperson did not single out particular stories. But the warning did come after media inquiries about a McClatchy News story on Friday that said Mr. Mueller has evidence that President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, did in fact travel to Prague in 2016 as alleged by the Christopher Steele dossier.

“What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said. “Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.”

Good advice.
   98. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:22 PM (#5654938)
He violated his oath of office. You pretend not to understand this
.
I don't pretend not to understand it; I tell you that you're wrong. Which is probably why you didn't quote said oath. Instead, you quoted Turley quoting Rosenstein quoting other people saying that Comey violated an "obligation" to protect "traditions of the Department." But his oath wasn't to departmental tradition.

Moreover, you have pulled an Andy, changing the topic. Your claim was that by leaking documents, Comey failed to support and defend the Constitution. I asked which part of the constitution he violated, and you dodged the question.


I did speak narrowly but my point was broader than that.
   99. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:27 PM (#5654945)
I did speak narrowly but my point was broader than that.


testing out pickup lines here now?

Good advice.


The Washington Times is absolute trash. Who is hell is this guy anyways?
   100. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:28 PM (#5654946)
Lynch had to recuse herself because the public was aware that she had compromised her partiality in favor of Hillary.

Not only did Lynch not "have to" recuse herself, but she didn't recuse herself.


Right; she did something even worse: she didn't recuse herself, but didn't carry out her responsibilities, nor did she have anyone else do so, thus causing the system to break down.

She too, if she wasn't biased (but of course she was, as "Call it a matter" shows), was hopelessly incompetent in how she handled this.
Page 1 of 14 pages  1 2 3 >  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
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2018
(3 - 10:24am, Dec 18)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogChicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon reveals the book he says is helping him manage millennial players
(65 - 10:18am, Dec 18)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(239 - 10:16am, Dec 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(385 - 10:15am, Dec 18)
Last: JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3763 - 10:11am, Dec 18)
Last: It's TFTIO's Monster, Actually

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2319 - 10:07am, Dec 18)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with Toddler!)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(657 - 10:02am, Dec 18)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogRed Sox owe $12 million in luxury tax, showing why they'd want to shed payroll
(16 - 10:00am, Dec 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

Sox TherapyThe Band Is Back Together...Now What?
(20 - 10:00am, Dec 18)
Last: Morton's Fork

NewsblogMLB: Mets to sign catcher Wilson Ramos
(56 - 9:57am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogUPDATE: WEEI denies it will change Red Sox broadcasts to a talk show format – HardballTalk
(20 - 9:53am, Dec 18)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogTHE HALL OF FAME VALUE STANDARD (Bill James rank 25 worst players in HOF & 25 best not in the HOF)
(111 - 9:47am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-17-2018
(15 - 9:04am, Dec 18)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(917 - 1:48am, Dec 18)
Last: DJS Holiday-Related Pun

NewsblogNY Post: Lenny Dykstra reveals his new life as an amateur Torah scholar
(13 - 8:04pm, Dec 17)
Last: willcarrolldoesnotsuk

Page rendered in 0.8028 seconds
46 querie(s) executed