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 23, 2018

OTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics

All true, and I have joined in the tut-tutting. Yet I can’t help noticing that the people making these criticisms are mostly a bunch of white guys born in the 1960s. I came along near the start of that decade, so I’ve seen a few cultural shifts in my day, and the first one came via early-1970s headlines proclaiming “Baseball No Longer the National Pastime,” after polls showed that football had become America’s most popular sport. Pundits lamented football’s rise (“violence punctuated by committee meetings,” in George Will’s memorable phrase, though he was certainly no stranger to the press box at Redskins games), and indeed, the change coincided with a trend toward greater complication, bureaucratization, and crudity in American life. After brushing off the 1980s soccer scare, football remained unchallenged for decades.

 

(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 23, 2018 at 08:10 AM | 1350 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nba, nfl, off-topic, politics, soccer

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 3 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:32 PM (#5658699)
Carter legalized homebrewing. I cannot imagine any analysis that doesn't have him as the greatest president of the last 100 years. Certainly in terms of expanding the freedoms of Americans.


Apropos, I made 2 batches today.
   202. Stormy JE Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:51 PM (#5658705)
   203. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:51 PM (#5658707)
Definitely time for reasonable restrictions on who can buy or possess a van.
As someone who's been selling cars for 24 years, I assure you there are numerous regulations covering both the vehicle and purchaser of a vehicle if purchased from a licensed dealer, and numerous restrictions on both the vehicle and user if the user wants to use the vehicle on public roads.
   204. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:53 PM (#5658709)
Or did you send your e-mails to a subordinate's spouse, hundreds of miles away, so they could be printed out?

Isn't what really happened is that the subordinate sent them to her own spouse, during the times they were in New York, so that she herself could print them? Do you really think this was really a secret plot to send government emails to Anthony Weiner?

You calling Huma Abedin a liar? That's practically like doubting the veracity of Ste. Hillary herself:
Abedin appeared to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to Weiner for him "to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state." But there was no indication that Abedin "had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law" Comey added, and investigators couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent.
. . .
Abedin's lawyers have previously said she did not know the emails were on Weiner's laptop and did not know how they got there.

Yeah, it sounds preposterous, so I can understand why you thought it made more sense for Abedin to forward the e-mails to a computer she was no where near in order to print them out herself. But that was my point, after all, the whole story is ludicrous.
   205. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:53 PM (#5658710)
If Nunes is correct


He's not, you pathetically naive moron.
   206. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:54 PM (#5658711)
I do not think the US will ever change the system, but the US has changed.


You'll never bring idiots like Clapper into the age of reason.
   207. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:56 PM (#5658713)
Maybe split up Texas too.


The entire algorithm is stupid and dumb.
   208. Stormy JE Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:01 PM (#5658715)
The suspect is reportedly 25-year old Alek Minassian. I'm pretty sure the surname is of Armenian origin, not Iranian.
   209. BrianBrianson Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5658717)
North York has about three quarters of a million people (plus, is on a commuter line). Toronto has about three hundred reported hate crimes a year, so presumably North York is ~75/year.

And the main Jewish neighbourhood in Toronto is probably Bathurst from St. Clair to Lawrence, not central North York.

In any event, the cops took him alive, despite his intentions. So we'll likely find out what his deal is.
   210. greenback slays lewks Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:09 PM (#5658719)
Kneepants, or any other lawyer, I have a question for you regarding:
Turley's analysis is overly simplistic. As you yourself boldfaced, he says that "Generally, courts reject the use of the exception with regard to past crimes and more often will allow the exception to be used when the attorney is an active vehicle or facilitator of a crime or fraud," and then added that Laurenza became Manafort/Gates's lawyer after the allegedly false filings were made. But they weren't asking Laurenza about any of those things; they were asking Laurenza about the filings she herself personally made on behalf of Manafort/Gates. In other words, alleged crimes that took place using her as "an active vehicle or facilitator of a crime or fraud." (I would point out that Turley doesn't mention that the judge found not only that the crime-fraud exception applied, but that the privilege was implicitly waived anyway. If I tell my lawyer about something that happened in the past for the purpose of seeking legal advice ("I killed Andy and buried his body in BM's lily-white cul-de-sac; what should I do?"), my lawyer can't disclose it without my consent, but if I tell my lawyer something for the purpose of him disclosing it and he discloses it, ("Tell the SEC that I did not rely on insider information when I made those trades. I based in on publicly-available information that I saw in last week's Dilbert"), then there's no privilege.)

Did Laurenza screw up here as badly as I think she did? The implication seems to be that Manafort and Gates gave answers to Laurenza that the DOJ quickly determined to be lies. She either suborned perjury, or more likely, she didn't stop her clients from lying to the DOJ. I get that Manafort, after getting away with so much #### for so long, like Trump, probably is not the easiest client to work with. But if you're sending something to the DOJ with your name on it, you really want to be more than your client's over-educated typist. I would assume a good lawyer would have some obligation to check that what she is sending to a law enforcement agency is accurate. Her employer's website suggests that Laurenza has a good reputation in her field, but this episode suggests to me I wouldn't want to work with her with any kind of potential felonies looming.
   211. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:12 PM (#5658723)
You calling Huma Abedin a liar? That's practically like doubting the veracity of Ste. Hillary herself:
The scenario seems fairly straightforward to me, although I agree that it seems careless. But it seems to fit all of the known facts and intentions.
1) Clinton sends an email to Abedin, saying "Please print". The government has already posted hundreds of these messages from Clinton.
2) Abedin has trouble printing on her office printer.
3) Abedin forwards the email to her home. Maybe 10 years ago, she didn't have a home computer or email account, so she forwards it to her husband's address, which is probably on a shared desktop computer.
4) Abedin prints the email.
5) At some point, Weiner gets a laptop, and copies all of the emails from the previous desktop to it, or they automatically download from a server to his laptop. It seems very unlikely that Weiner is using the same computer in 2016 that he was using back in 2008.

This seems like the most logical explanation. It would also explain why Abedin "did not know the emails were on Weiner's laptop and did not know how they got there." What is your alternate scenario? I'd like to hear how you think the emails got on Weiner's laptop.
   212. Stormy JE Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5658725)
In any event, the cops took him alive, despite his intentions. So we'll likely find out what his deal is.
Indeed. Meanwhile, thoughts and prayers for the victims and their loved ones.
   213. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:24 PM (#5658729)
What is your alternate scenario? I'd like to hear how you think the emails got on Weiner's laptop.

We don't know, but that doesn't mean we can't doubt those e-mails were forwarded to a computer hundreds of miles away to be printed. Maybe Huma was thinking of writing a book, maybe she was wanted some insurance she wouldn't one day be thrown under the bus, maybe she was super negligent. Even if you gullibly believe she & Hillary designed a convoluted Rosemary-Woods-E-Mail-Storage-&-Printing-System, there's no reason to give her a "she didn't know any better" pass on the mishandling of classified material.
   214. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:29 PM (#5658730)
thoughts and prayers


#### you.
   215. BrianBrianson Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:34 PM (#5658733)
My facebook feed has started to fill up with people checking in as "safe". I kinda wonder if that's helpful, or just makes the non-checkin/non-contacts all the more concerning.
   216. Greg K Posted: April 23, 2018 at 07:50 PM (#5658737)
My facebook feed has started to fill up with people checking in as "safe". I kinda wonder if that's helpful, or just makes the non-checkin/non-contacts all the more concerning.

My girlfriend used to work at a building right where it happened. She was wanting to know her former co-workers were ok, but figured texting them "you dead?" would be crude.

There's also the matter of how far afield your friends are. Is a "safe" message necessary for your friends in San Diego that don't know that you live on the other side of Toronto?
   217. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5658744)
Meanwhile, thoughts and prayers for the victims and their loved ones.


I'm sure your delusions of magic sky fairies will come in super helpful for them.
   218. Stormy JE Posted: April 23, 2018 at 08:45 PM (#5658760)
Associated Press, 12 January 2017:
The Associated Press is among the news organizations that has been aware of the documents and has attempted to authenticate them. The AP determined publishing the details did not meet its criteria.

"The purported sourcing was anonymous, which made it impossible for AP to determine if the sources were credible or in a position to know the facts about any allegations being made," said John Daniszewski, vice president for standards and editor at large.

"After learning these documents were included in a high-level briefing to the president and the president-elect by intelligence officials, the AP decided it newsworthy to report their existence. However, it continues to refrain from reporting specific material that has not been verified or corroborated."
Isn't it so totally funny how AP only considered the dossier newsworthy when it learned that intel officials had briefed Trump?

#ThanksComey
   219. BDC Posted: April 23, 2018 at 08:46 PM (#5658761)
I’m at the ballpark tonight, and four rows in front of me is a Latino/a couple; he’s abled, in an aisle seat, and she’s in a sports wheelchair, ooching up close to him. I know I’m supposed to fiercely identify with my tribe and play every advantage I can over the disabled, but seeing them, what I mostly feel is that they are every bit as much of this American community as I am; and that when I am old and disabled, and Anglos are a minority in Texas, I might be sitting there (albeit in a much nicer domed stadium :) in my own wheelchair - not next to my partner, who dislikes baseball, but maybe next to my baseball pal and her wife and kids. That’s why I love America.
   220. Stormy JE Posted: April 23, 2018 at 08:51 PM (#5658765)
One of Trump's harshest legal critics, Ambassador Norm Eisen, on Dershowitz:
When I worked in @AlanDersh's crim law practice as a law student, almost all of r cases were pro bono. That's why he paid me so little ;-). U may agree or disagree with his views as applied 2 Trump (& I strongly disagree), but views have been consistent for 30 yrs I've known Alan
   221. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 08:59 PM (#5658768)
West Virginia's Joe Manchin is considered one of the more vulnerable Senate incumbents this cycle. That pickup opportunity is why the state's GOP primary, coming up in two and a half weeks, has become a pitched three-way battle.

But not everyone involved in the GOP primary is entirely sincere about flipping Manchin’s seat. Particularly not a new Super PAC that's launched about $400,000 of ads targeting two of the three GOP candidates, while leaving the third unblemished. The third candidate who’s getting an attack ad pass is disgraced and recently imprisoned coal baron Don Blankenship.

Is that a great use of the Dems $400K, the best use of their $400K? The latest poll has Blankenship 'fading':
With the primary two weeks away, the survey shows Blankenship, who spent a year in jail following the deadly 2010 explosion at his Upper Big Branch Mine, falling far behind his more mainstream rivals, GOP Rep. Evan Jenkins and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. The poll found Morrisey leading with 24 percent, followed by Jenkins with 20 percent, and Blankenship trailing with 12 percent.

That Democratic Super PAC isn't the only one participating in the primary, and the others may have the better argument.
   222. Traderdave Posted: April 23, 2018 at 09:08 PM (#5658773)
I’m at the ballpark tonight, and four rows in front of me is a Latino/a couple; he’s abled, in an aisle seat, and she’s in a sports wheelchair, ooching up close to him. I know I’m supposed to fiercely identify with my tribe and play every advantage I can over the disabled, but seeing them, what I mostly feel is that they are every bit as much of this American community as I am; and that when I am old and disabled, and Anglos are a minority in Texas, I might be sitting there (albeit in a much nicer domed stadium :) in my own wheelchair - not next to my partner, who dislikes baseball, but maybe next to my baseball pal and her wife and kids. That’s why I love America.


That lovely anecdote reminds me of Thanksgiving about 15 years ago. I had to run out to the supermarket to get one forgotten item, got there around noon. I was the only Anglo in sight, the rest of the customers were a mix of Asian & Hispanic immigrants. They had lists of what to buy, and even though I couldn't understand their words it was obvious from overhearing their gentle bickering that they were trying to make the feast as authentically American as possible. A couple of them asked me for advice on what kind of cranberry was best, how to make gravy, etc. Their very thick accents made it clear they were new to America.

It was a profoundly affirming moment and when we host that holiday (which we do most years) I always retell it over a toast at the start of the meal.
   223. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 09:27 PM (#5658778)
Isn't it so totally funny how AP only considered the dossier newsworthy when


You can't trust those sleepy eyes. Better stick to the real truthers down at The Federalist and Daily Caller.
   224. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: April 23, 2018 at 09:33 PM (#5658780)
Laser Man and DMN already answered the questions, but I'll try to add a little more detail on a few points:

Ms. Abedin, did Mrs. Clinton ever take any steps to ensure that you weren't passing along her emails to people without security clearances?

Mrs. Clinton, did you ever take any steps to ensure that email traffic through your server wasn't being passed along to people without security clearances?


As David said, these are the wrong questions. The question that should have been asked is "what procedures did you put in place for a user to report suspected classified information and what procedures did you put in place to remove any confirmed classified information from the system?" Classification is fuzzy at best, so there is always a possibility that inadvertent classified information will be found on a unclassified computer system. In all the unclass systems that I used, it was expected that occasionally we could receive email that we might think was classified. The procedures on what to do were very clear. If anything, this is likely where Clinton was negligent in not taking this possibility into account and having the correct procedures in place.

Neither Clinton's mail server or the government's .gov server are classified email servers. The assumption and the directive in each case is that no classified material is supposed to sent through those email systems. Neither Clinton's mail server or the government's .gov server are classified email servers. The assumption and the directive in each case is that no classified material is supposed to sent through those email systems. Sometimes people send things by mistake, not realizing that they are classified (Note that none of the email chains later deemed classified were started by Clinton). Neither system (and in fact, probably all non-classified systems that are not purely internal systems) would be expected to have any mechanism to prevent emails from being forwarded outside the system - that is one of the most common uses of email.


Reread this response by Laser Man. I agree with this 1000%. People would have been as likely to put classified info on state.gov as on the private email server.

No, it actually wasn't ... which is why a bunch of classified emails got there. It was "set up" to receive her business emails, with no distinction made by her or anyone else between classified and unclassified. It's not as though the rogue server had some special reader inside that said, "Oh, that email is classified, we can't let it through!!"


Lets do a little gedanken experiment. I was not a cabinet secretary, but a mid-level DoD technical person. I got roughly 200 emails a day on my classified systems of which about half were classified. In the time that Clinton was SoS, that amounts to about 100K classified emails. If people actually thought that it was safe to send classified emails to Clinton on her private server, you should expect a lot more classified emails on a lot more topics. No go back and reread Laser Mans previous answer again about inadvertent classified emails slipping into an unclass system. Which seems more logical, that it was an unclass system with occasional mistakes or it was set up to receive all info, classified or not (hint - it is not that it was to receive all business emails regardless of the classification.)

And when they make a mistake, it's still deemed ok, because the information is still on a secure system. Not so with a "mistake" on the rogue server.


No unclass system with lines outside a physically protected area is a "secure system". SIPRNet, IntelLink etc are secure systems since every external entry point is covered by high-grade encryption. If you have unencrypted connections, you leave yourself open to being hacked. In fact, wasn't state.gov hacked while Clinton was SoS? Also go back to my first statement - It is not "OK" to have classified info on a .gov computer, there must be procedures in place to remove any inadvertent classified information from the system if it is identified.

And I've asked patiently, "What is the classified system" he's talking about, and did she get classified emails there. Do people have personal email accounts on this system? The FBI report, which I've skimmed, is unclear. It says there was a system she could send info to "all staff" on, but that system (or address) couldn't receive emails. Then I got bored and busy and moved on.


In the early-mid 2000's, the State classified system was MINERVA. Every state department employee had a personnel email account of this system. I had one while assigned to USNATO during this time frame as well as a state.gov account. I know Secretary Rice had an account because my boss forwarded me a couple of email chains that he was on which included Rice. Whether Clinton used her account, I don't know.
   225. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 23, 2018 at 09:37 PM (#5658784)
I’m at the ballpark tonight, and four rows in front of me is a Latino/a couple; he’s abled, in an aisle seat, and she’s in a sports wheelchair, ooching up close to him. I know I’m supposed to fiercely identify with my tribe and play every advantage I can over the disabled, but seeing them, what I mostly feel is that they are every bit as much of this American community as I am; and that when I am old and disabled, and Anglos are a minority in Texas, I might be sitting there (albeit in a much nicer domed stadium :) in my own wheelchair - not next to my partner, who dislikes baseball, but maybe next to my baseball pal and her wife and kids. That’s why I love America.

That lovely anecdote reminds me of Thanksgiving about 15 years ago. I had to run out to the supermarket to get one forgotten item, got there around noon. I was the only Anglo in sight, the rest of the customers were a mix of Asian & Hispanic immigrants. They had lists of what to buy, and even though I couldn't understand their words it was obvious from overhearing their gentle bickering that they were trying to make the feast as authentically American as possible. A couple of them asked me for advice on what kind of cranberry was best, how to make gravy, etc. Their very thick accents made it clear they were new to America.

My parents were introduced to each other in New York City in 1928 by a Chinese Communist who was married to my mother's sister, who'd previously been married to a WWI draft resister with whom she'd had a daughter. The daughter was sent to school in Switzerland when her mother and her husband went to China in the 30's. The daughter had two abortions when she was still in her teens, then married a Russian immigrant, the son of a former Tsarist summer palace guard, who gave her real stability for the first time in her life. She then got more progressively conservative over the rest of her long life and wound up somewhere in the vicinity of Rush Limbaugh, but still as fine a person as I'll ever know, both she and her Russian husband. In the meantime, her mother went back to the U.S. just before the war began, while her husband remained in China for the rest of his life. Of course she then also became fiercely anti-Communist and voted for Nixon against JFK, only to re-covert to liberal Catholicism once the Vietnam war heated up.

And my mother's other sister was a Milliners' Union worker who was the most interesting one of them all.

Bottom line is that if that Chinese Communist hadn't known my father, I wouldn't be here today making everyone fall asleep with these family tales. People who knock immigration are just ####### idiots.
   226. Traderdave Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5658794)
The late, great Harvey Wallbanger once posted that to be anti-immigration is to be anti-growth, anti-family, anti-future and anti-American.

Godamn I wish he was still here.
   227. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5658795)
Speculation Swirls Over Supreme Court Retirements.
   228. Chip Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:03 PM (#5658796)
By FLTB's "logic," it's entirely predictable that phone calls to the Secretary of State would contain classified information, and therefore it would've been grossly negligent of her to have a personal phone in her house or personal cell phone.


How apropos that we get this report today:

Trump ramps up personal cell phone use
   229. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:25 PM (#5658803)
The late, great Harvey Wallbanger once posted that to be anti-immigration is to be anti-growth, anti-family, anti-future and anti-American.

Godamn I wish he was still here.


Me, too. A Korean war vet and a Republican with a brain.
   230. Traderdave Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:38 PM (#5658813)
Me, too. A Korean war vet and a Republican with a brain.


My dad is same.
   231. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:46 PM (#5658815)
Trump ramps up personal cell phone use

Yep. It is and was never about principles for these ghouls.
   232. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 10:58 PM (#5658818)
I do not think that McCabe's wife being a democrat running for office means he tanked the clinton investigation, in part because there's no evidence the investigation was tanked.


I've also said I can't know whether the Clinton investigation was tanked but what sort of "evidence" would you accept? An admission on the record? What about something short of that? We have Obama's telegraphing on national tv that she was innocent; we have the Strzok/Page texts; we have Loretta "Tarmac" Lynch's "Call it a matter"; we have the fact that the Clinton investigation looks nothing like the Mueller investigation; we have Comey going out of his way to read the gross negligence standard out of the statute; we had the DOJ completely relinquishing its proper function in the process, because the head of the DOJ hopelessly compromised her integrity by privately meeting with the husband of the subject/target.

I don't claim that these markers mean that they tanked the investigation; the above could just be seeing patterns in clouds, much like the pizza parlor idiocy. But it's not like we'd get a signed confession, and if you had a tanked investigation, you'd expect to see hallmarks such as the above.

The above composite sketch raises an eyebrow; but I don't claim we can get closer than that on the facts we have. If the above nonsense went on with Trump, the left would be screaming bloody murder, as the right has been with Clinton.
   233. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:02 PM (#5658820)
The things Comey said in his book and on ABC news being not the things Comey said in his book and on ABC News because Fox happened to chronicle them is the bigger LOL. Kind of par for the TDS course, though.


Did FOX News make up the book excerpts? Quote them out of context? If not I don't see the relevance to the fact that SBB had to go to FOX News to find the quotes.

Other than as yet another exhibit in how dishonest the MSM is. Those excerpts were on point and informative.
   234. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:13 PM (#5658821)
Check out the rest of Turley's post to see just how honorable some people in Mueller's profession find him,

By "some people" you mean one person,


There was also the stuff about Mueller's chief aide, Weissman.

and his complaint is that Mueller is very aggressive as a prosecutor. Not really sure what that has to do with anything; it's just throwing stuff at the wall to see if something sticks.


He sent someone with a wire into a criminal defense lawyer's office in an effort to entrap the lawyer into suborning perjury.

Mueller is working hand in hand with the SDNY. If he's not calling the shots in the investigation he's consulting on it, or is at least being informed of every step of it. Either way, any evidence the investigation turns up will certainly be delivered to Mueller. They clearly want Cohen to flip on Trump. That's the whole effing point of the entire investigation. Why you're denying that is an exercise left to the (sane) reader.

A sane reader would wonder why Mueller handed Cohen over to the USAO-SDNY rather than doing it himself; he doesn't control the SDNY.


To make it appear that he's not running too far afield or too "very aggressive" to the point where it stinks to high heaven.

That doesn't mean that if they turn something up relevant to his investigation he wouldn't find out and attempt to use it, obviously. But your confident pronouncement that he has already attempted to pressure Cohen, when there hasn't even been an indictment, is strange.


Not at all. Cohen is in a vice. Whether they've actually approached him yet to gauge his interest level in cutting a deal, and for what, is immaterial. They've laid the groundwork, and that's where they're obviously headed if they haven't gotten there already, so I have no idea what your pedantic point is here.

Every lawyer I saw who commented on this said that they're going to try to squeeze Cohen to get him to sing. (IIRC Turley added the twist that Cohen is being used to bait Trump into firing Mueller.) But somehow, you deny that that's what the obvious play is here.
   235. Count Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:18 PM (#5658823)
Did FOX News make up the book excerpts? Quote them out of context? If not I don't see the relevance to the fact that SBB had to go to FOX News to find the quotes.

Other than as yet another exhibit in how dishonest the MSM is. Those excerpts were on point and informative.


I was pointing out that the things SBB was complaining weren't being covered obviously were being covered somewhere because SBB was excerpting articles (without linking them). In this case he was using Fox News, so his MSM criticism could theoretically be true (though in this case it's false, the Comey interview was transcribed and excerpted everywhere).
   236. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:18 PM (#5658824)
LOL at the fact that ABC apparently didn't air that part of the interview. TDS? What TDS?????

The deranged part is thinking that ABC tried to hide that. Here is the transcript of the interview from ABC - the quotes on Obama are right there, along with Comey's thoughts about Obama's statement.

ABC Transcript of Comey Interview


You folks would do better to concede the obvious points that SBB scores.

Obviously ABC tried to hide it. They didn't air it. They put it in the transcript, which they know receives a far far smaller audience. But there was no reason not to air it. It was clearly important enough to put in the segment.
   237. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:22 PM (#5658826)
¹There's a conspiracy theory going around MAGA twitter that McCabe altered the 302s of the agents who conducted the Michael Flynn interview in order to trick Mueller into prosecuting Flynn.


No bleeping way that's true. But it *IS* the richest of bullshit to not record the interview or create a transcript of it and then to indict the witness for false statements on the basis of your "302s."
   238. Count Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:25 PM (#5658828)
I've also said I can't know whether the Clinton investigation was tanked but what sort of "evidence" would you accept? An admission on the record? What about something short of that? We have Obama's telegraphing on national tv that she was innocent; we have the Strzok/Page texts; we have Loretta "Tarmac" Lynch's "Call it a matter"; we have the fact that the Clinton investigation looks nothing like the Mueller investigation; we have Comey going out of his way to read the gross negligence standard out of the statute; we had the DOJ completely relinquishing its proper function in the process, because the head of the DOJ hopelessly compromised her integrity by privately meeting with the husband of the subject/target.

I don't claim that these markers mean that they tanked the investigation; the above could just be seeing patterns in clouds, much like the pizza parlor idiocy. But it's not like we'd get a signed confession, and if you had a tanked investigation, you'd expect to see hallmarks such as the above.

The above composite sketch raises an eyebrow; but I don't claim we can get closer than that on the facts we have. If the above nonsense went on with Trump, the left would be screaming bloody murder, as the right has been with Clinton.


No. There's nothing to the Strzok / Page texts, which is why you keep invoking it without being specific. Lynch didn't make the charging decision. The Clinton investigation looks nothing like the Mueller investigation because there was much less involved. There was never reason to think Clinton had the necessary intent and there was never reason to think there was a real effect on national security. Again, this all netted out to a few emails that after the fact were marked classified. She should have (and did!) paid a political price for trying to evade FOIA or other government record keeping obligations, but the idea she should have been prosecuted is absurd. And in utterly bad faith from you and 99% of conservatives considering how little you care about Trump doing much worse things (like blurting out intelligence in the oval office! Using a personal / insecure cell phone probably creates exposure as well) or from Bush-era failures.
   239. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5658833)
But, of course, if she had somehow incriminated herself at the interview (or, more likely, if she had provably lied about something material), nothing on earth prevented them from tearing up the draft and starting over. (Actually, large parts of the draft would still have been salvageable.)


I believe she told the truth at the interview. (Not that I think the interview was actually hard hitting.) But that only means that the interview went something like:

"Mrs. Clinton, you don't really think that whether a document is classified turns on whether the document was marked as classified, do you?"

"No."

"So you misled the public about that?"

"Yes."

Not really the stuff that leaves you coming away with a warm and fuzzy feeling about what a truth teller she is. It actually shows how much of an extraordinary liar she is to the public.
   240. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 11:48 PM (#5658835)
Abedin appeared to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to Weiner for him "to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state." But there was no indication that Abedin "had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law" Comey added, and investigators couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent.


Comey is outfitting Huma with a pathetic George Costanza "If anyone had told me that having sex with the cleaning woman was frowned upon..." defense. But as every first year law student knows, ignorance of the law is generally no excuse. I don't know if there's something in the case law that allows for such an excuse here, but the statute itself (793(f)) doesn't provide any such excuse, and I can't recall anything in the example prosecutions I've seen under this section that allow for this excuse. And unless the case law says otherwise, whether Huma -- or Hillary, or Cheryl Mills -- "had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law" is irrelevant.

If I punch Sam in the face I can't then escape punishment by saying, "Well I never dreamed that punching Sam in the face would violate the law." In general whether you intended to violate the law is not relevant; what's relevant is that you intend to do the act which violates the law.
   241. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5658838)
Me, too. A Korean war vet and a Republican with a brain.


My dad is same.


My father was a Republican with a brain, one of the smartest men I knew. But not about politics.
   242. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 12:14 AM (#5658839)
how little you care about Trump doing much worse things (like blurting out intelligence in the oval office!


It's perfectly legal. Same excuse they will use when Trump pardons Cohen.
   243. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 12:16 AM (#5658840)
In general whether you intended to violate the law is not relevant; what's relevant is that you intend to do the act which violates the law.


Like firing the head of the FBI to quash the Russia investigation.
   244. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 12:19 AM (#5658841)
Kneepants, or any other lawyer, I have a question for you regarding:

Turley's analysis is overly simplistic. As you yourself boldfaced, he says that "Generally, courts reject the use of the exception with regard to past crimes and more often will allow the exception to be used when the attorney is an active vehicle or facilitator of a crime or fraud," and then added that Laurenza became Manafort/Gates's lawyer after the allegedly false filings were made. But they weren't asking Laurenza about any of those things; they were asking Laurenza about the filings she herself personally made on behalf of Manafort/Gates. In other words, alleged crimes that took place using her as "an active vehicle or facilitator of a crime or fraud." (I would point out that Turley doesn't mention that the judge found not only that the crime-fraud exception applied, but that the privilege was implicitly waived anyway. If I tell my lawyer about something that happened in the past for the purpose of seeking legal advice ("I killed Andy and buried his body in BM's lily-white cul-de-sac; what should I do?"), my lawyer can't disclose it without my consent, but if I tell my lawyer something for the purpose of him disclosing it and he discloses it, ("Tell the SEC that I did not rely on insider information when I made those trades. I based in on publicly-available information that I saw in last week's Dilbert"), then there's no privilege.)

Did Laurenza screw up here as badly as I think she did? The implication seems to be that Manafort and Gates gave answers to Laurenza that the DOJ quickly determined to be lies. She either suborned perjury, or more likely, she didn't stop her clients from lying to the DOJ. I get that Manafort, after getting away with so much #### for so long, like Trump, probably is not the easiest client to work with. But if you're sending something to the DOJ with your name on it, you really want to be more than your client's over-educated typist. I would assume a good lawyer would have some obligation to check that what she is sending to a law enforcement agency is accurate. Her employer's website suggests that Laurenza has a good reputation in her field, but this episode suggests to me I wouldn't want to work with her with any kind of potential felonies looming.


Generally a lawyer will get in trouble for making representations to a government body that he or she knows are untrue.

In the patent law setting this comes up from time to time. For example occasionally a patentee will come to me and ask me to revive his patent for him. I will always question him as to the circumstances of the patent lapse. Upon questioning him I sometimes find that the person let his patent expire because he lost interest in it, or because he didn't have the financial means to maintain it. But those aren't valid reasons to let a patent expire. Generally you can revive patents if you didn't intentionally let them go abandoned (e.g., you inadvertently missed a maintenance fee deadline). If I learn that the person intentionally let the patent go abandoned I will not file a request for revival. That goes even moreso if he then were to say to me, "Hey, let's just say wink wink that I missed the deadline..." I refuse to make a false representation to the USPTO. There are few things that can leave a patent attorney in serious ethical hot water as far as his registration number goes; that's one of them. (*)

Either (1) Laurenza was duped by Manafort/Gates, or (2) she sort of turned a blind eye to it, or (3) she was actively complicit in it. My sense is that it was the first one, or maybe the second one. In any event it seems that Mueller had clear evidence that the representations were false, whether Laurenza knew about that or not.

(*) Despite the bad rap that lawyers get from laypeople for being unethical, the math actually doesn't work for a lawyer to engage in unethical practices. To do what, get a fee in exchange for... losing your law license? It's not a tradeoff that any rational lawyer would make once, let alone over and over again. I've actually never met a lawyer who came anywhere close to resembling the ridiculous caricature that the outside world portrays of them. Though I imagine IP law is different from PI law, or whatever law Michael Cohen pretends to practice.
   245. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 12:20 AM (#5658842)
Dr. Jackson's appoiintment to head the DVA seems to be in jeaopardy

Washington (CNN)Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee are raising concerns about allegations involving Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department of Veterans Affairs and are reviewing them to determine if they are substantial enough to upend his nomination.

Committee members have been told about allegations related to improper conduct in various stages of his career, two sources said.

The sources say the committee is in talks to delay Wednesday's confirmation hearing as they try to figure out the allegations.


Clapper assured us he was eminently qualified. Fully vetted no doubt. Not an off the cuff, shoot from the hip nomination. No way.
   246. Laser Man Posted: April 24, 2018 at 12:41 AM (#5658844)
Obviously ABC tried to hide it. They didn't air it. They put it in the transcript, which they know receives a far far smaller audience.
Serious question - is this really true? I'm sure I saw the statements in question, and I could have sworn that I saw it on the ABC Sunday night broadcast. ABC released a transcript of the TV show on the 15th, and then released a full transcript of the entire 5 hour interview on the 16th. The Obama statements in question are in both transcripts. Is anyone besides that one Fox columnist claiming that ABC tried to hide that part?
   247. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 01:00 AM (#5658846)
That was a silly theory to begin with, but now the entire premise behind it is a fail.

Oh, obviously. Also, OJ didn't kill his ex, because he denies it. All fake lawyers know that de rigueur denials by co-conspirators must be true.


You have a point but you're overselling it. It's always useful to hear an alleged co-conspirator's version of events, if only to test it against other facts you've established. All real lawyers know that.

But I'm not sure why she would care if people knew that she "conspired" to "interfere with our election" if it's true. It's not illegal, and certainly Putin would applaud. Would she be afraid that the Clintons would have her killed?

Anyway, the FOX News talking point on this is that she says Mueller hasn't even tried to interview her to get her story.
   248. greenback slays lewks Posted: April 24, 2018 at 01:07 AM (#5658847)
Despite the bad rap that lawyers get from laypeople for being unethical, the math actually doesn't work for a lawyer to engage in unethical practices. To do what, get a fee in exchange for... losing your law license?

How many lawyers actually lose their licenses? I mean, somehow Michael Cohen has managed to remain in good standing with the bar, and he practices in a state that actually is awake. Granted, he only has three clients, but he comes off as a legal goon.

Mueller's handling of Laurenza -- she hasn't been charged yet -- suggests she was duped. That may put her in the clear ethics-wise, but it's generally not something that speaks well of a professional's competence. Her odd situation has helped me understand why lawyers steer clear of "tough" clients, even ones that are sure to pay through the nose for legal representation. As you say, the math almost cannot work, because the lawyer is liable to end up in odd positions that become the subject matter of ethics case studies.
   249. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 01:26 AM (#5658848)
Clapper assured us he was eminently qualified. Fully vetted no doubt. Not an off the cuff, shoot from the hip nomination. No way.

Well, one would certainly think that the White House Physician would be thoroughly vetted before being appointed. Are you saying the Obama Administration didn't do that? How about the Navy, when they repeatedly promoted him, making him an Admiral? Or are you just assuming that an uninvestigated allegation is true, without even knowing what the allegation is? The linked article doesn't even suggest that the Committee Democrats believe that the allegations, which are not detailed, have merit as this point, just that they need to be reviewed. Misirlou seems to be willing to go to great lengths here to take a cheap shot at me, but he appears to be just jumping to conclusions, yet again. Sad.
   250. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 02:46 AM (#5658853)
210: Without being privy to more specifics, I am reluctant to say that Laurenza screwed up. (But it's (to coin a phrase) Not a Good Look for her.) As lawyers, we are always to some extent dependent on our clients telling us the truth. We can probe to see if their stories are consistent, or ask for corroborating documentation from our clients, but depending on the circumstances there may not be any such documents. At that point, there's not a lot we can do. We can't hire a private investigator to find out whether our clients aren't telling us everything; who would pay for that? If a client is determined to lie to us, that's on them.
   251. greenback slays lewks Posted: April 24, 2018 at 06:21 AM (#5658861)
As lawyers, we are always to some extent dependent on our clients telling us the truth. We can probe to see if their stories are consistent, or ask for corroborating documentation from our clients, but depending on the circumstances there may not be any such documents. At that point, there's not a lot we can do.


Interesting. One of the things I've read from real lawyers is that they really don't care about The Absolute Truth so much as what they can prove. For example, I believe I've read that Manafort (via Laurenza) claimed that his company only retained email for 30 days. I would think you'd want a policy statement or even screenshots of server settings before passing this along to the feds.

Or at least that's the kind of #### my employers' auditors have put us through, and there's much less at risk in that circumstance than when you're dealing with a Department of Justice investigation of foreign influence on a presidential election.
   252. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 06:32 AM (#5658862)

For example, I believe I've read that Manafort (via Laurenza) claimed that his company only retained email for 30 days. I would think you'd want a policy statement or even screenshots of server settings before passing this along to the feds.
They did have a policy statement. Quoting from the judge's order about Laurenza: "A copy of that written policy was enclosed in the November 2016 letter."
   253. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 06:51 AM (#5658863)
Despite the bad rap that lawyers get from laypeople for being unethical, the math actually doesn't work for a lawyer to engage in unethical practices. To do what, get a fee in exchange for... losing your law license?


Hahahahaha

Yeah, lawyers are really eager to prevent other lawyers from raking in money and have themselves created a system that they alone enforce for that purpose. Pull the other one my Little Lord. It’s winks and nods all the way down.
   254. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 07:53 AM (#5658868)
Despite the bad rap that lawyers get from laypeople for being unethical


I don't see any reason why lawyers should be any more or any less ethical than anyone else. And yes how they are portrayed in film and TV is silly, but the same goes for basically every profession and ... well everything. A few episodes of many shows would fill a normal lifetime, but such is entertainment.
   255. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 07:56 AM (#5658869)
Some political news ...

Democrats Crushing GOP In Senate Fundraising
“With less than 200 days to go to until the 2018 elections, all ten of the Democratic senators running in states President Trump won have major campaign cash advantages over their GOP opponents… The party is also in strong financial shape to seriously contest four GOP-held seats after some impressive hauls by non-incumbents.”


7 Risk Factors for House Republicans

The Cook Political Report identifies “seven risk factors” for House GOP incumbents in the midterm elections:

* Sits in a district with a Cook PVI score of R+5 or less Republican.
* Sits in a district that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016.
* Received 55 percent of the vote or less in the 2016 election (or a 2017 special election).
* Voted in favor of the American Health Care Act in the May 4 roll call vote.
* Voted in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the December 19 roll call vote.
* Raised less money than at least one Democratic opponent in the first quarter of 2018.
* Has a Democratic opponent with at least $200,000 in cash on hand as of March 31.

“Only one incumbent, Rep. Steve Knight (CA-25), has all seven risk factors. Eight incumbents have six risk factors, 23 incumbents have five, 23 incumbents have four and 32 have three.”
   256. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 08:02 AM (#5658871)
I know demographics is not destiny, at least not in simple terms, but I think it does inform the future and is more solid than parsing which candidates Soccer Moms prefer.

Republicans And Democrats Should Be Worried About 2020

At first glance, the projected growth of white people with college degrees and non-white people in the electorate seems fairly small. But it’s building on a longer-term trend that is helping Democrats. Over the past 20 years, the percentage of college graduates and non-white people in the U.S. electorate has increased while the share of whites without college degrees has decreased. And in that period (1997 through 2017), the Republican candidate has lost the popular vote in four out of five presidential elections
(in 2000 and 2016, Republicans won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote).

Indeed, the report’s authors argue that this slight shift in the projected makeup of eligible voters by 2020 would have tipped the 2016 election toward Hillary Clinton. Basically, if you rerun the 2016 election — if the various voting blocs backed Democrats and Republicans at the same percentages as in 2016 and turnout stayed the same by group — but you use the projected 2020 population, these small increases in the number of minorities and college-educated voters and the decline of white-working class voters would turn Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from very narrow GOP wins to similarly narrow Democratic wins, according to the authors. Clinton would have won the Electoral College if she had carried those three states.


And later ....
But this study underlines two broad truths in today’s U.S. politics. The Democrats need to do a better job wooing white working-class voters and getting more blacks to the polls (black populations are larger than Asian or Latino ones in states like Michigan and Ohio that have a lot of Electoral College votes). If they don’t, they’ll have a problem winning states in the middle of the country and therefore the Electoral College. At the same time, Republicans have a huge problem with non-white voters that imperils their ability to win national elections and should not be ignored because of Trump’s victory in 2016.

The authors of this study, in looking at the parties’ demographic coalitions, wrote that “quite a few future scenarios could mimic the result of the 2016 election — a Democratic win in the popular vote with a Republican win in the Electoral College.” That is really bad news for Democrats, but hardly a great place for the GOP to be in either: trying to lead a country where a plurality of voters voted for the other party.
   257. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 08:05 AM (#5658872)
This is the sort of thing that would have been a huge deal had Obama similarly snubbed Republicans, but its OK if you are a Republican, and anyway what is one more minor scandal?

No Democratic Lawmakers Invited to State Dinner

Associated Press: “In a break with tradition, Trump invited no Democratic members of Congress or journalists, said a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the arrangements.”
   258. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5658883)
Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee are raising concerns about allegations involving Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department of Veterans Affairs... The sources say the committee is in talks to delay Wednesday's confirmation hearing as they try to figure out the allegations.


Those talks appear to have gone very well, because Ronny Jackson's confirmation hearing has officially been postponed. Bipartisanship is back!

Exactly what "postponed" means was not explained. Maybe Jackson's hearing will be rescheduled very soon. Or maybe Donald Trump and his incredibly good genes might need to live to 200 years old to see Jackson get a vote.
   259. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:23 AM (#5658884)
Flashback: '60 Minutes' edits Obama's answer on Benghazi

Suspend your disbelief: Selective editing of big-name interviews exists. Few people care what's in the transcript or subsequent online clips; what counts is what initially got aired.
   260. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5658887)
Selective editing exists


It is called "editing". Everyone does it, all the time.

EDIT: Even you, in your post. :)
   261. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5658890)
Please proceed.
   262. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5658893)
It is called "editing". Everyone does it, all the time.


Juan skipped journalism class at Buchanan High. Actually he skipped most of his classes. Once a Sweathog, always a Sweathog.
   263. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5658894)
This is the sort of thing that would have been a huge deal had Obama similarly snubbed Republicans, but its OK if you are a Republican, and anyway what is one more minor scandal?
It's hardly a scandal, just boorish behavior. If nothing else, Coons should have been a last-minute invite for not voting against Pompeo's nomination.
   264. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:30 AM (#5658896)
EDIT: Even you, in your post. :)
LOL. I *added* info in my selective edit.
   265. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5658899)
It's hardly a scandal, just boorish behavior.


That is the thing. Such behavior by Obama would have been a huge deal in certain circles. Anyway in the grand scheme of things it is not very important, like what suit Obama wears, haircuts, feet on the furniture or whatever random nonsense we have seen in the past. With luck, GOP President Trump will have reset the scale for everyone and we can - in the post Trump world - treat such low level stuff as it is.
   266. McCoy Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5658900)
See? He's draining the swamp!
   267. DavidFoss Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:36 AM (#5658902)
Few people care what's in the transcript or subsequent online clips; what counts is what initially got aired.

I said this a page or two ago, but plenty of reporters and pundits were tweeting excerpts from the full online transcript within minutes of it being dumped. The juicier tidbits will end up on the dailycaller within an hour and will then be discussed on Fox & Friends the next morning. Then, the President will tweet about it. Then that tweet will be picked up by the network news stations and the next morning shows. If anything interesting doesn't make the initial 42 minute broadcast, it will come out and people will care.
   268. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5658903)
That is the thing. Such behavior by Obama would have been a huge deal in certain circles. Anyway in the grand scheme of things it is not very important, like what suit Obama wears, haircuts, feet on the furniture or whatever random nonsense we have seen in the past. With luck, GOP President Trump will have reset the scale for everyone and we can - in the post Trump world - treat such low level stuff as it is.
Oh, I would've noted the insult too and the issue should be raised.

Also, let's not forget it wasn't conservatives who were mocking Obama left and right for wearing a tan suit.
   269. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:40 AM (#5658905)
Stephen Miller:
This is a fun false myth. The tan suit went viral because of snarky reporters from buzzfeed like outlets & twitter going “Obama wore a tan suit & Twitter can’t even.” There were maybe two pieces about it in whole of conservative media


EDIT: And FTR, I don't give a #### if POTUS shows up to a DC event between 15 May and 15 September wearing a seersucker, let alone tan cloth.
   270. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:51 AM (#5658908)
And, of course, Bloomberg has evidence that Trump’s pee tape alibi is false.
   271. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:53 AM (#5658911)
   272. Greg K Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5658914)
Whether it turns out to be a hoax or not, I envy future historians who will get to use the phrase "pee tape alibi" in their work.
   273. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5658915)
   274. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:56 AM (#5658916)
In #221, Clapper hopes the unexpectedly troublesome West Virginia primary might not be so troublesome after all:
The latest poll has Blankenship 'fading':
With the primary two weeks away, the survey shows Blankenship, who spent a year in jail following the deadly 2010 explosion at his Upper Big Branch Mine, falling far behind his more mainstream rivals, GOP Rep. Evan Jenkins and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. The poll found Morrisey leading with 24 percent, followed by Jenkins with 20 percent, and Blankenship trailing with 12 percent.

Clapper seems way too eager here about a poll of 411 respondents that features a runaway 39% win for "undecided." Usually Clapper's so quick with the lectures about getting too far out ahead of the available information, and the risk of jumping to conclusions.

Morrisey-- 98 people
Jenkins-- 82 people
Blankenship-- 49 people
undecided-- 160 people

It seems particularly risky to derive too much relief from a first-time poll from GOPAC, a 527 group whose stated purpose is "Educating And Electing A New Generation Of Republican Leaders" and whose 2018 goal is "working daily to hold our #Republican majorities and flip Democrat seats in state legislatures #acrossthecountry." Also, it'd be hard for any candidate in the West Virginia Republican primary to "fade" from no previous GOPAC poll. Perhaps that's why GOPAC itself didn't make that claim. Their rhetorical vim is directed at how beatable Joe Manchin is "in spite of the current political punditry." For some reason, they also say their poll shows "most Republican voters remain undecided" even though 61% of them picked a candidate.

Nevertheless, I agree that it would actually be a terrific thing if the GOP's foulest, stupidest, shittiest candidates would stop getting the voter traction and wins they've been getting. I mean, yeah, it's hilarious when the GOP base rushes out to back a pedophile or a Nazi-- and we're talking literal pedophiles and actual Nazis, not the muddy invective that fills the comments section of any article linked on Drudge. But despite the fun, I've had enough aghast laughs at my country's worst instincts in these last 3 or 4 years to tide me over for a good while.

On the Morrisey/Jenkins attack ads:
Is that a great use of the Dems $400K, the best use of their $400K?

Gee, and Clapper just seemed so pleased that Blankenship is fading. That being the case, wouldn't targeting the only two guys who can win the nomination be a wise investment?

Things get so confusing whenever Clapper weighs in on campaign spending. Except for the eternal truth that the next dollar any Democrat directs shrewdly and usefully will be the first.

Meanwhile, miner threat Don Blankenship has pumped more money into the WV primary race than both of the other Republican candidates plus the Democrats' new ratf*cking Super PAC, combined. Seems like a big expense to score a meager 12 percent. It's almost as if nobody really believes Blankenship is going to end up with only 12 percent of the vote, not even Clapper.
   275. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5658917)
And, of course, Bloomberg has evidence that Trump’s pee tape alibi is false.
About that article:
(A previous version of this story was corrected to reflect that the flight data firm erroneously provided a time of landing in Moscow that was the same as departure from North Carolina.)
Also, I'm pretty sure Trump never said he didn't stay the night in Moscow, just that he didn't spend the night in the hotel.
   276. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:02 AM (#5658921)
This is a fun false myth. The tan suit went viral because of snarky reporters from buzzfeed like outlets & twitter going “Obama wore a tan suit & Twitter can’t even.” There were maybe two pieces about it in whole of conservative media


Uh-huh.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) went on an extended rant about President Barack Obama’s decision to wear a tan suit during a statement about the terrorist group ISIS he delivered on Thursday at the White House.

“There’s no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday,” King said on NewsMaxTV on Friday. The interview was flagged by Buzzfeed. “When you have the world watching … a week, two weeks of anticipation of what the United States is gonna do. For him to walk out —I’m not trying to be trivial here— in a light suit, light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy. This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded and he’s trying to act like real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say he has no strategy.”


Counting to two... is hard.

Selective memory is selective.

EDIT: Cokes to YR
   277. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:04 AM (#5658922)
As "The Daily Show" pointed out, Trump didn't claim to have not spent two days in Moscow, Trump told Comey that he didn't sleep overnight in the hotel. Because who can sleep in a bed soaked with urine?
   278. DavidFoss Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5658923)
Also, I'm pretty sure Trump never said he didn't stay the night in Moscow, just that he didn't spend the night in the hotel.

He did say that.

I don't actually care about the prostitutes. I mean, if he just came out, owned it and doubled down about it like he has everything else, he wouldn't lose any support.

It's just so funny how guilty he is acting. Why squirm like this? Why send reporters out to verify alibis that are obviously fake?
   279. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5658924)
Uh-huh.
Want to call Peter King a "conservative?" OK, you go crazy with that.

As Miller points out, reporters were the ones who instigated the supposed controversy.
   280. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:08 AM (#5658925)
As Miller points out, reporters were the ones who instigated the supposed controversy.


Uh-huh.

Maybe you should give him a terrorist fist bump.... is there an emoji for that?
   281. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:09 AM (#5658926)
He did say that.
Your comment isn't clear: Trump did say what? In Comey's memo, Trump informed him that he didn't spend the night at the hotel.
   282. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5658927)
Uh-huh.

Maybe you should give him a terrorist fist bump.... is there an emoji for that?
I see the long Canadian winter has left some scars.
   283. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM (#5658930)
Bloomberg needed to correct its supposed big story because its reporter hadn't factored in Moscow being seven hours ahead of the Eastern Time Zone.
   284. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5658932)
Your comment isn't clear: Trump did say what? In Comey's memo, Trump informed him that he didn't spend the night at the hotel.


No, he didn't.


i said, too Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in
Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, "there were no prostitutes; ,there were never prostitutes." He then said
something about him being the kind of guy who didn't need to "go there? and laughed {which I understood to be
communicating that he didn?t need to pay for sex). He said "2013? to himself, as if trying to remember that period of
time, but didn't add anything. He said he always assumed that hotel rooms he stayed in when he travels are wired in
some way. I replied that I do as well.
   285. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5658934)
i said, too Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in
Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, "there were no prostitutes; ,there were never prostitutes."


He thinks they weren't prostitutes because HE didn't pay them himself. "Just two more hot young babes begging me to grab 'em in the #####! Ah Donnie, you still got it baby."
   286. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5658935)
I see the long Canadian winter has left some scars.


Not sure it's so wise for a Trump cuck to be referencing 'scars'...
   287. DavidFoss Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5658936)
Bloomberg needed to correct its supposed big story because its reporter hadn't factored in Moscow being seven hours ahead of the Eastern Time Zone.

Are you trying to de-legitimize the story?

NBC already had video tape from rehearsals the day before the telecast followed by an interview the morning of the pageant. Until he denied it, everyone knew that Trump spent the night in Moscow. Verifying the obvious is shooting fish in the barrel.
   288. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5658937)
He thinks they weren't prostitutes because HE didn't pay them himself. "Just two more hot young babes begging me to grab 'em in the #####! Ah Donnie, you still got it baby."


They're not prostitutes because he only pays them AFTERWARDS... with Michael Cohen's money.

   289. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5658941)
Convicted felon, Daddy Kush, takes the blame for 666....

Further explains hinky financing oddly secured after Baby Kush met with VC principle about possibly getting a WH job had nothing to do with Jared, it was all him getting the extramarital goods on the VC Principle and blackmailing him. Oh wait, no - that was what led to his felony conviction.

I sometimes struggle to keep all of the Kushner business dealings straight. They all seem to bleed together.
   290. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:42 AM (#5658947)
I sometimes struggle to keep all of the Kushner business dealings straight. They all seem to bleed together.


Out of their eyes, out of their whereevers.
   291. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5658948)
NBC already had video tape from rehearsals the day before the telecast followed by an interview the morning of the pageant. Until he denied it, everyone knew that Trump spent the night in Moscow. Verifying the obvious is shooting fish in the barrel.
Not the issue. Do we have evidence Trump spent the night at the hotel?

And on such a short stay screwing up those seven hours does constitute a tangible reporting error.
   292. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5658959)
Not the issue.


Odd how the things Trump actually says that are demonstrably false NEVER constitutes "the issue".

"The Issue" is always is always a pick 'em of who said what about Trump, why who said what about Trump, or what was said about Trump.

It's like a child-created template for authoritarianism... Dear Leader is above the fray - never question Dear Leader - but always question the motives, individuals, actions, et al of those who don't toe the Dear Leader line.

Sad.
   293. DavidFoss Posted: April 24, 2018 at 10:58 AM (#5658960)
Not the issue. Do we have evidence Trump spent the night at the hotel?

Are you asking if we have a pee pee tape? Not yet! :-)

Trying to de-legitimize stories that are just following up on Trump trying to deny things that are obviously true is sad. Are you just trying to claim victory on some minute point? Eventually, someone will say that Trump had peas with his dinner instead of carrots and then you can WIN the news cycle.
   294. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5658962)
Trying to de-legitimize stories that are just following up on Trump trying to deny things that are obviously true is sad. Are you just trying to claim victory on some minute point? Eventually, someone will say that Trump had peas with his dinner instead of carrots and then you can WIN the news cycle.
Putting words in my mouth, huh? The story doesn't claim what you want it to claim.

If Trump spent the night at the Ritz, there would be a record, right? Bloomberg has the flight plan records but no documentation showing he stayed at the hotel.
   295. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5658964)
If you ever say Donald Trump ate peas or carrots (or broccoli or string beans or cauliflower or beets or cabbage or squash or peppers or corn or spinach or asparagus), I'll know you're a damned liar.
   296. CrosbyBird Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5658967)
Yeah, lawyers are really eager to prevent other lawyers from raking in money and have themselves created a system that they alone enforce for that purpose. Pull the other one my Little Lord. It’s winks and nods all the way down.

I'm almost a decade out of practicing, but the one really unethical thing I remember was billing. People didn't even pretend to bill the actual time they worked.

It was very common for people to go to court in the morning, spend around two or three hours handling four different matters, and bill each of the clients for 1.6 hours. To cut and paste the boilerplate stuff in a motion and bill as if it were drafted from scratch. "If you're on the toilet and you think of the client, that's billable."

But don't co-mingle funds or they'll take your license away.
   297. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5658971)
Also, I'm pretty sure Trump never said he didn't stay the night in Moscow, just that he didn't spend the night in the hotel.
Depends if you believe Comey. His memo says this: "He said he had spoken to people who had been on the Miss Universe tlrip with him and they had reminded him that he didn't stay overnight in Russia for that. He said he arrived in the morning, did events, then showered and dressed for the pageant at the hotel (he didn't say the hotel name) and left for the pageant. Afterwards, he returned only to get his things because they departed for New York by plane that same night." (Emphasis added.)

EDIT: No Coke to zonk because he quoted the wrong passage.

EDIT 2: Comey said it again in another memo: "The President brought up the "Golden Showers thing" and said it realIy bothered him if his wife had any doubt about it. He then explained, as he did at our dinner, that he hadn't stayed overnight in Russia during the Miss Universe trip."


   298. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5658973)
But don't co-mingle


*ahem* commingle
   299. Stormy JE Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5658977)
The NRA just broke a 15-year fundraising record:
As the student-led March for Our Lives movement captured the nation's attention in the weeks after the Parkland shooting, the other side of the gun control debate enjoyed a banner month of its own.


The National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund raised $2.4 million from March 1 to March 31, the group's first full month of political fundraising since the nation's deadliest high school shooting on Valentine's Day, according to filings submitted to the Federal Elections Commission. The total is $1.5 million more than the organization raised during the same time period in 2017, when it took in $884,000 in donations, and $1.6 million more than it raised in February 2018.

The $2.4 million haul is the most money raised by the NRA's political arm in one month since June 2003, the last month when electronic federal records were readily available. It surpasses the $1.1 million and $1.5 million raised in January and February 2013, the two months after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Most of the donations, $1.9 million of the $2.4 million total, came from small donors who gave less than $200. The NRA doles out money to political campaigns from the victory fund, but most of its spending is on activity that isn't directly linked with a lawmakers' campaign where the group is not bound by state and federal campaign finance limits. For example, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio received only $9,900 in direct contributions from the NRA during his 2016 U.S. Senate campaign, but his campaign benefited from $3.3 million in outside spending from the NRA to help him defeat Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy.
Also, you geniuses just gave Republicans a reason to vote this November.
   300. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: April 24, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5658978)
EDIT: No Coke to zonk because he quoted the wrong passage.


Do you, by chance, have a link to anywhere that has transcribed the memos into plain text? The embedded PDFs - even the ones with the text conversion option - are just so friggin annoying to search through.
Page 3 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  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
Ray (CTL)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1915 - 4:14am, Sep 22)
Last: Srul Itza At Home

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(49 - 4:01am, Sep 22)
Last: TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky"

NewsblogJoe Maddon is angry with MLB over Cubs weather-impacted schedule
(62 - 3:38am, Sep 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(158 - 3:32am, Sep 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogHearing WFAN’s John Sterling home run call on WEEI was a weird juxtaposition
(13 - 2:18am, Sep 22)
Last: TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky"

NewsblogIt's not the full moon that excites OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 21, 2018
(86 - 12:58am, Sep 22)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

NewsblogRed Sox Fan Dies Climbing On Top of Train Leaving Yankee Stadium
(17 - 12:56am, Sep 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(509 - 12:36am, Sep 22)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(9 - 11:39pm, Sep 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMarlins CEO Derek Jeter: Don Mattingly 'under contract' for 2019
(13 - 10:49pm, Sep 21)
Last: Ziggy's screen name

Sox TherapyIT’S OVER
(5 - 10:29pm, Sep 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogSimon - Why Does Bryce Harper Have -25 Defensive Runs Saved?
(9 - 8:39pm, Sep 21)
Last: RMc Has Bizarre Ideas to Fix Baseball

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(67 - 8:23pm, Sep 21)
Last: RMc Has Bizarre Ideas to Fix Baseball

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-21-2018
(22 - 8:11pm, Sep 21)
Last: RMc Has Bizarre Ideas to Fix Baseball

NewsblogCain stars in Directional Outs Above Average
(15 - 5:16pm, Sep 21)
Last: Batman

Page rendered in 0.8008 seconds
46 querie(s) executed