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 30, 2018

OTP 2018 Apr 30: Republicans in Congress return to baseball field nearly a year after gunman opened fire

As a light rain trickled down Wednesday, Republican members of Congress returned to a baseball field where a gunman critically wounded teammate Rep. Steve Scalise and shattered their sense of security nearly a year ago.

“Today is an emotional day,’’ said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, manager of the Republican congressional baseball team. “But it’s also a rebirth, a renewal. I’m proud of the team.’‘

On June 14, Republican lawmakers practicing for their annual charity baseball game against Democrats found themselves scrambling to dodge gunfire from a man behind a chain-link fence.

 

(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 30, 2018 at 07:56 AM | 1655 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: congress, off topic, old people's medicine for fuel, politics, shooting

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 17 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17
   1601. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2018 at 12:16 AM (#5667192)
is the distinction that not all poor kids go to bed hungry at night?


Right, that's the crux of the disagreement.

Factcheck.org is using old definitions that they acknowledge are not accurate to try to zing Pelosi:
As noted by the USDA, “low food security” was once known as “food insecurity without hunger” and “very low food security” was known as “food insecurity with hunger.” But the USDA in 2006 stopped using the “with hunger” and “without hunger” labels, and combined those categories into a single “food insecurity” category. As the USDA explains on its website, the Committee on National Statistics at the time recommended that the USDA stop using those labels because “hunger is not adequately assessed in the food security survey.”


20% of US children are poor. Are you saying it's that unlikely that poor kids go to bed hungry somewhat regularly? I grew up poor. We went to bed hungry at least a few times a month.

a lot of weird claims here that Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, who leans left, now is a tool of the right because he makes verboten observations about Mueller

is factcheck.org next on the chopping block?


This is the usual dumb ####. People who make bad claims should be called out regardless of other work they do. The accuracy of the work is the defense, not any kind of partisan allegiance.
   1602. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 01:23 AM (#5667199)
I seriously don't think so. If you pay any attention to the hard right they've gone much further than my "So far there's nothing but let's see what turns up." They are flat out stating it's a hoax.

No question the hard core Trump base thinks the Mueller investigation is a hoax, but I wasn't aware they weren't following Trump's lead and demanding that it be shut down.


They probably are for the most part, but keep in mind that Trump's interest diverges from that of the hard right here, due to the personal connection Trump has to those being investigated. Outsiders of all stripes have no personal stake in this. But Trump does. He's watching as people who agreed to work for him are being investigated, bankrupted, indicted. Most of them are being investigated for no reason other than they worked for the campaign that won the election. Thus Trump -- and any decent-minded person in Trump's shoes -- *should* want the investigation shut down, *even if* Trump didn't collude. He's watching as people who worked for him are being hurt. And he should not only want the investigation to be shut down, but a good and moral person in his position should pardon everyone who has been investigated and indicted. Mueller is indeed finding real crimes related to money laundering and such, but these are not people who committed rape or murder, and most of these people would not be under investigation BUT FOR the fact that they worked for Trump. It is unseemly that the campaign that won the election is being investigated for winning the election.

I suppose it's possible that some of the True Believers think that Trump will come out completely unscathed,


Trump will be charged with some combination of financial crimes, obstruction, and perhaps -- if he's interviewed by Mueller -- false statements. I'd be surprised if he were charged with anything collusion-related, such as being involved in the hacking of DNC emails, which is really -- let's not forget -- where all of this started.
   1603. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2018 at 01:32 AM (#5667202)
Rudy Giuliani--will he last more than a Mooch?

By Saturday night he was back on Fox News. Things did not get any better.

Giuliani appeared on one of Trump’s favorite programs, Justice With Judge Jeanine, which airs at 9 p.m.
...
Giuliani again addressed the Stormy Daniels case and the $130,000 hush money payment made by Trump’s longtime attorney Michael Cohen to the adult film actress. If the money was intended to influence the campaign, it could violate federal law.

But Giuliani told Pirro that the donation would be legal “even if it was a campaign donation.” According to Giuliani, it was legal as a campaign donation because “the president reimbursed it fully.”
...
At another point, Giuliani says the payment to Stormy Daniels was not a loan but an “expenditure,” which is the word the FEC uses to describe expenses related to a campaign.



Trump has the worst lawyers.
   1604. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:30 AM (#5667206)
Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, now, on Donald Trump's adultery:
These things happened many years ago. And there’s such bigger problems in front of us as a nation that we need to be dealing with than other things in [Donald Trump's] life a long time ago. I think some of these things — that’s for him and his wife to deal with. I think when the country went after President Clinton, the Republicans, that was a great mistake that should never have happened. And I think this thing with Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody’s business.

Franklin Graham on Bill Clinton's adultery, 1998:
If [Bill Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? Private conduct does have public consequences.

Rev. Graham is a man of religious principle, and he understands that the situations are very DiffeRent.
   1605. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 06:03 AM (#5667208)
Looks like plenty of reputable sources online to support this statement. Inlcuding the US Census Bureau - which you claim (or your source claims) debunks her stat. Is it all fake news or is FactCheck lazy?
Not sure where you see any of those links supporting the claim that 20% of children go to bed hungry.

20% of US children are poor. Are you saying it's that unlikely that poor kids go to bed hungry somewhat regularly? I grew up poor. We went to bed hungry at least a few times a month.
Factcheck is saying it. Or, rather, they aren’t just saying it; they’re providing data saying it. They in no way acknowledged that the data they cited was inaccurate. And the very fact that there is a “food insecurity” category demonstrates that people don’t go to bed hungry; activists had to create a new, vaguer and broader category to pretend that a problem existed.
   1606. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2018 at 07:41 AM (#5667209)
Always good to be reminded that David's NotRay switch only works on exactly one topic.
   1607. BDC Posted: May 06, 2018 at 09:53 AM (#5667229)
And the very fact that there is a “food insecurity” category demonstrates that people don’t go to bed hungry; activists had to create a new, vaguer and broader category to pretend that a problem existed.

I don't think it's that. The definitions explored at factcheck.org are fairly nuanced (much more so than Pelosi acknowledges in her soundbite, and much more so than just counting the hungry). "Food insecurity" can be defined as not having access to good or balanced diets. It's often noted that poverty in the US leads to obesity. When you can't afford much beyond a diet of the same sugars, carbs, salt, and trans fats all the time, that's not hunger, but it's not great either.

And yeah yeah yeah, that's not absolute poverty, it would be princely to kids in Sudan, eating from the dollar menu at McDonald's means taking in more calories per day than John D. Rockefeller could afford, whatever. It's still not great. It still means inequality – that some people have unlimited options, and others have very few.

To which a libertarian will say, cry me a ####ing river, I've got my guns to keep the porch clear for my 2-hour Amazon deliveries from Whole Foods.

None of this gets Pelosi off the hook. One out of five kids might not have a good diet. But claiming that one out of five kids goes hungry is (I believe) sensationalist, anachronistic, and unhelpful to both the kids who go badly nourished and the few who truly do go hungry.

   1608. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5667234)
Rudy Giuliani--will he last more than a Mooch?

[...]

Trump has the worst lawyers.
Relatedly:

Mueller Poses As Fox News Host To Coax Rudy Giuliani Into Giving Him Testimony On Trump
   1609. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 06, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5667238)
None of this gets Pelosi off the hook. One out of five kids might not have a good diet. But claiming that one out of five kids goes hungry is (I believe) sensationalist, anachronistic, and unhelpful to both the kids who go badly nourished and the few who truly do go hungry.

Pelosi's conflation of poverty and hunger is one of those cases where she's committed more of a blunder than a crime, but unfortunately blunders like Pelosi's in our age of Gotchas can be far more harmful to her overall cause. It's sad but all too true that a conflation like that will get far more attention from the Gotchas than the infinitely more important fact that poverty leads to the sort of heads-you-lose / tails-you-lose choices that you (BDC) describe above. The problem lies partly with Pelosi's speechwriter for using "going to bed hungry" numbers as her easily refuted talking point rather than "not able to afford nutritious meals on an ongoing basis", but we all know that using the more truthful talking point would've gotten her comments totally ignored in the media.

And probably ignored by Howie, too. But then the sort of priorities we usually exhibit here on the OTP thread pretty much mirror those of the imperatives of our 24/7 news cycle.

   1610. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 06, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5667240)
Mueller Poses As Fox News Host To Coax Rudy Giuliani Into Giving Him Testimony On Trump

You don't have to click on that link to know it's either from The Onion or Andy Borowitz, but you also have to reflect on the fact that when Trump is concerned, those parody headlines are often no more than one degree separated from reality.
   1611. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5667241)
I don't think it's that. The definitions explored at factcheck.org are fairly nuanced (much more so than Pelosi acknowledges in her soundbite, and much more so than just counting the hungry). "Food insecurity" can be defined as not having access to good or balanced diets. It's often noted that poverty in the US leads to obesity. When you can't afford much beyond a diet of the same sugars, carbs, salt, and trans fats all the time, that's not hunger, but it's not great either.
The phenomenon you describe exists - though I suspect we would disagree on the causes - but it’s not what the “food insecurity” concept was created to capture. It’s about not being able to afford food - but it’s defined very broadly so as to artificially inflate the scale of the issue.
   1612. Chip Posted: May 06, 2018 at 10:42 AM (#5667243)
   1613. BDC Posted: May 06, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5667244)
In other news, I am now getting a fresh set of campaign ads in the mail and on social media: the next Election Day here (the third this spring) is 22 May. "Early and often" is not a joke in this precinct.
   1614. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 06, 2018 at 11:12 AM (#5667254)
The phenomenon you describe exists - though I suspect we would disagree on the causes - but it’s not what the “food insecurity” concept was created to capture. It’s about not being able to afford food - but it’s defined very broadly so as to artificially inflate the scale of the issue.

Without getting into the substance of what "food insecurity" either means or doesn't mean, or how real its underlying condition is, it's one of those phrases that so easily lends itself to mockery that you have to wonder just what its originators were thinking when they came up with it. It's kind of like the "cisgender" or "chairperson" of nutrition.
   1615. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5667269)
You're old.
   1616. BDC Posted: May 06, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5667270)
Catching up with my political films, last night we watched A Royal Affair, the 2012 Danish costume drama about King Christian VII (Mikkel Boe Følsgaard), who married George III's sister (Alicia Vikander). Christian VII apparently made George III look like a paragon of sanity. The film focuses on a couple of years where Christian's physician (Mads Mikkelsen) became a virtual dictator, as well as lover of the Queen.

The film, as you can imagine, is pretty skeptical about monarchy. Struensee (the doctor) is a "man of the Enlightenment" who wants to liberalize the political system, but can only do so dictatorially, in the name of the King. In a postscript, though, the film explains that Denmark became a liberal monarchy thanks to Christian's son Frederik VI.

The romance plot is less thought-provoking, in fact becomes a fairly conventional doomed-love story. Initially I misread the description and thought that Struensee had an affair with the King – and there are undertones of Christian falling in love with him, but they are quickly sacrificed to gauzy love scenes involving Mikkelsen and Vikander.
   1617. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 06, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5667273)
You're old.

And yet mercifully still possessing a sense of the absurd. The inanity of political jargon doesn't age well, regardless of where it's coming from, or the sincerity with which it's expressed.
   1618. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2018 at 12:13 PM (#5667276)
And yet mercifully still possessing a sense of the absurd.

How shockingly different you are from every other old person.
   1619. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 06, 2018 at 12:24 PM (#5667278)
I owe it all to my Schon.
   1620. greenback slays lewks Posted: May 06, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5667289)
Mueller Poses As Fox News Host To Coax Rudy Giuliani Into Giving Him Testimony On Trump

Yes, Trump's primary legal strategy is to make his prosecution politically untenable. They don't give a #### about how a law professor or a competent federal judge would evaluate their arguments. Giuliani's job is to wave his hands at various infractions, telling the base (and Trump) that everything is kosher. I don't know whether his strategy will succeed or fail, but nobody in the GOP seems to be willing to tell him to stop, which is bad enough.
   1621. Howie Menckel Posted: May 06, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5667303)
People who make bad claims should be called out regardless of other work they do.

yes
but if you notice that you conclude that a legal scholar or a fact-checking site only makes good claims when you agree with the commentary, and any time it doesn't line up that those are bad claims - well, we're not really talking about them, are we?
   1622. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5667325)
yes
but if you notice that you conclude that a legal scholar or a fact-checking site only makes good claims when you agree with the commentary, and any time it doesn't line up that those are bad claims - well, we're not really talking about them, are we?


1. No one ever cited Jonathan Turley on this board before he started defending Trump on Fox News and Ray started reading his blog. I don't read him aside from when Ray posts his stuff here. So sorry that I don't read every author ever.
2. There has been plenty of disagreement with various FactCheck.org pieces on both sides of the aisle.
3. Your fetishism for "both sides" is part of the problem with politics in the US today.
   1623. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:32 PM (#5667345)
JE, #1587:
Is Reuters/Ipsos the first non-Rasmussen pollster showing Trump with a 49 percent job approval among registered voters? (As for generic congressional ballot preference, Democrats are at +6.)


Yes. As far as I can tell, no Trump poll has even topped 45% in over a year (*as you say, non-Rasmussen division). The last such poll was a 46% poll in March 2017, also from Reuters/Ipsos.

In 2018, the Reuters/Ipsos polling on Trump's approval has gone from 41% to 39 to 37 to 41 to 40 to 39 to 40 to 40 to 40 to 44 to 41 to 41 to 39 to 41 to 41, and then to 49%. There has been some upward creepage in other approval polls, but we might want to wait for the next Reuters poll to get a better sense of their findings. If the next Reuters poll were to be 44%, I wouldn't use a one-poll memory to call that a sharp slump in Trump's support.

In the same one-week period the Reuters/Ipsos poll went up 8%, the Econ/YouGov approval poll rose 1%.
   1624. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5667360)
As an FYI, I am on vacation (In Orlando) and since I am heading out theme parking tomorrow I submitted next week's thread early. So watch for it (or don't, whatever).
   1625. -- Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:49 PM (#5667364)
3. Your fetishism for "both sides" is part of the problem with politics in the US today.


LOLOL.
   1626. -- Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5667368)
You're old.


"Cisgender" isn't bad because it's a new idea -- there are plenty of great new ideas -- it's bad because it's a dumb idea.
   1627. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5667369)
   1628. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5667374)
Obama and GW Bush will be eulogists at John McCain's funeral, Trump has been overtly dis-invited.
   1629. -- Posted: May 06, 2018 at 02:59 PM (#5667377)
Obama and GW Bush will be eulogists at John McCain's funeral, Trump has been overtly dis-invited.


Classy. Really nothing to admire in that odd decision in the least. Unstatesmanlike and divisive. Symbolic of a Declining America.
   1630. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5667384)
It's delightful, of course. McCain likes presidents who aren't crapturds.
   1631. -- Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5667391)
It's delightful, of course.


You would think so. (Stress on "would.")
   1632. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5667392)
Giuliani is back on the rampage:

“So the President did know about this after the campaign?” Stephanopoulos asked, pressing the Giuliani on Trump’s astonishing claim last month that he didn’t know the source of the payment to Daniels, months after the story broke.

“Can’t say that,” Giuliani said. “At some point, yes, but it could have been recently, it could have been awhile back. Those are the facts that we’re still working on and that, you know, may be in a little bit of dispute. This is more rumor than anything else.”

“But that’s what you said,” Stephanopoulos interjected. “You said that to Buzzfeed.”

“Well yeah,” Giuliani said. “That’s one of the possibilities, and one of the rumors.”

“You stated it as fact,” Stephanopoulos said.

“Well, maybe I did,” Giuliani admitted. “But right now, I’m at the point where I’m learning. And I can’t prove that. I can just say it’s rumored. I can prove it’s rumor. But I can’t prove it’s fact. Maybe we will.”

Stephanopoulos persisted: “You said, as a matter of fact, on “Hannity” and Buzzfeed, you talked to the Washington Post about it–”

“Well, I don’t know, how do you separate fact and opinion?” said Giuliani. “When I state an opinion, I’ll say this is my opinion. When I state a fact, I’ll say this is a fact.”

Later in the interview, Giuliani contradicted his statement to BuzzFeed again, saying that the agreement between Trump and Cohen was “longstanding” rather than something the two established after the election.

“The agreement with Michael Cohen, as far as I know, is a longstanding agreement, that Michael Cohen takes care of situations like this, then gets paid for them, sometimes,” he said. “Gets paid for them sometimes, gets reimbursed in another way. It depends on whether it’s business or personal.”

Stephanopoulos eventually asked whether Michael Cohen had made payments to other women on Trump’s behalf.

“I have no knowledge of that,” Giulini replied. “But I would think if it was necessary, yes. He made payments for the President. He conducted business for the President.”

   1633. -- Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5667396)
Nobody but the TDS-obsessed cares whether he paid off Stormy, or what the circumstances were, assuming he didn't like steal the money or something.
   1634. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5667399)
Nobody but the TDS-obsessed cares whether he paid off Stormy, or what the circumstances were, assuming he didn't like steal the money or something.


The FEC cares. Since, you know, it's a potential felony.
   1635. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5667401)
Classy. Really nothing to admire in that odd decision in the least. Unstatesmanlike and divisive. Symbolic of a Declining America.

I can only assume this is a joke. It's a declining America not to invite the draft dodger who made fun of you for being captured as a pilot during a war to hang out with your family while you're being mourned.

Nobody but the TDS-obsessed cares whether he paid off Stormy is a pathological liar.
Got that right.
   1636. -- Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5667403)
It's a declining America not to invite the draft dodger who made fun of you for being captured as a pilot during a war to hang out with your family while you're being mourned.


It's all politics. W Bush said bad things about him too. There will be plenty of draft dodgers there including W Bush.

It's not a joke, no.
   1637. greenback slays lewks Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5667405)
The FEC cares. Since, you know, it's a potential felony.

FoxNews will beat the FEC into submission the same way it beat Lois Lerner. They'll use Howie's both-sides-ism as an anvil without any sense of irony or (obviously) shame.
   1638. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5667406)
1. No one ever cited Jonathan Turley on this board before he started defending Trump on Fox News and Ray started reading his blog. I don't read him aside from when Ray posts his stuff here. So sorry that I don't read every author ever.


I cite him because (1) he's a con law professor, (2) he provides regular legal commentary on these matters, (3) in a blog which is easy to link to and quote from, and (4) while he certainly leans a bit to the right he's not unhinged and is generally objective. It's not like (as to point 4) I'm citing Joe diGenova.

Turley has been highly critical on plenty of occasions of Trump and his legal team on both the Comey/Mueller/Russia probe and on the Clifford affair. See, e.g., Turley's column today on Rudy Giuliani. (In today's column Turley uses the same word to describe Rudy's recent interviews that I used a few days ago: "disastrous.") But because Turley doesn't sign on to the various unhinged legal theories of the left he's seen as disqualifying to the left.

I cite to Dershowitz for similar reasons. If someone can provide another con law professor who is regularly commenting on these issues in blog or column form I'd be glad to read him/her and link to him or her. But the diGenova Rule applies: the person can't be utterly unhinged and basically an advocate for one side or the other, like Laurence Tribe is.

The guys at Volokh are typically pretty good but unfortunately they don't provide running commentary on these matters. Their efforts are more sporadic in nature.

   1639. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5667409)
Just like Denorex shampoo, the tingling sensation of resentment that Larvell SBB is feeling means McCain's farewell F.U. is working.
   1640. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:31 PM (#5667411)
The FEC cares. Since, you know, it's a potential felony.

Really? You want to enlighten us on the Federal Election Commission's criminal law jurisdiction?
   1641. Howie Menckel Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5667415)
Turley is a highly-respected Constitutional law scholar - and that's true no matter what opinions he expresses. Nobody's perfect, but I respect his opinions. assuming he is some partisan hack is not a good look, and he has a long and public and distinguished career that shows it. if you never heard of him, then your credibility in this sphere is diminished.

you're allowed to research my comment, and let us know what you now think.

wait, I'll get you started. here is a link from The Washington Post from 1998
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/turley073098.htm

"Who in the world is Jonathan Turley and what is he doing on your television?

The 37-year-old George Washington University legal scholar who specializes in environmental law has suddenly become the Lewinsky investigation talking head of the moment -- attractive, articulate and available.

In the last week, with the subpoena of President Clinton and immunity deal for Monica Lewinsky, Turley's opined on the "Today" show, "Nightline," CNN's "Crossfire," Fox News Channel and MSNBC's "Big Show With Keith Olbermann."...

A liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 1996, Turley combines a talent for sound bites with a willingness to take on the president.

"People in the media know him and trust his judgment -- not to mention the fact that for television purposes he certainly cuts a nice figure," says Jack Friedenthal, who recently stepped down as dean of George Washington's law school."

   1642. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:40 PM (#5667416)
Later in the interview, Giuliani contradicted his statement to BuzzFeed again, saying that the agreement between Trump and Cohen was “longstanding” rather than something the two established after the election.

“The agreement with Michael Cohen, as far as I know, is a longstanding agreement, that Michael Cohen takes care of situations like this, then gets paid for them, sometimes,” he said. “Gets paid for them sometimes, gets reimbursed in another way. It depends on whether it’s business or personal.”


Maybe it's ethical to practice law in this way, but I seriously doubt it. First, an attorney getting constantly paid from a client even when the attorney is doing no work. Second, an attorney making large payments on behalf of the client without his client being specifically aware of what the attorney is doing. Third an attorney making large payments on behalf of a client and never making any attempt afterwards to specifically invoice the payments to the client or even to advise the client that such payments were made on his behalf. Just generally taking monies out of the constant stream of money from the client to the attorney to deal with these things. (With "a little more" to the attorney as "profit" and "to cover taxes." But if Trump was paying Cohen "a little more" then Trump necessarily must have been aware of what the payment was in the first place.)

Generally fees to clients are (1) hourly, or (2) fixed, or (3) contingency, or some hybrid version of these. It's not clear to me which category this lawyer-client fee arrangement fell into. Rudy seems to be saying that Trump in effect paid Cohen a salary and then after that point no effort was made to itemize which monies were paid by Cohen to third parties on behalf of Trump or to advise Trump of the same. It's quite curious. Am I missing something? Is all of this as Rudy describes ethical?
   1643. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5667423)
The other problem aside from the legal ethics is the law: Rudy doesn't seem to understand the campaign finance laws he is opining on despite making public statements of the facts and the law on behalf of his client. Actually he doesn't seem to understand the facts either. This has gone precisely as predicted.

Where are the real lawyers on Trump's team during all of this? EG Jay Sekulow? In making these statements on behalf of Trump, Rudy is not only admitting on Trump's behalf of criminal behavior but Rudy is also distancing Trump's story from Cohen's story. Which is fine if those are the actual facts but isolating Cohen means that Cohen is going to be telling a different story and once that happens Cohen becomes even more susceptible to making a deal with Mueller. Which Cohen is very likely to do anyway but this just adds to the chaos of it all. There's no organized strategy here, and Rudy is trying (haplessly) to litigate the case in the media.

It's an out and out disaster for Trump. The real lawyers such as those on Mueller's team and Michael Avenatti are going to have a field day with Rudy's various statements. And it makes a defense on Trump's behalf of no campaign finance violation much harder to believe.
   1644. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5667429)
Nobody but the TDS-obsessed cares whether he paid off Stormy, or what the circumstances were, assuming he didn't like steal the money or something.


The FEC cares. Since, you know, it's a potential felony.


Eh, at the end of the day it's small beer, not impeachable. And probably just a fine.

But there are wider implications re the Mueller investigation and Cohen and false statements that pose serious legal (and impeachable) threats to Trump. The potential campaign violation by itself is almost nothing. But Rudy is making multiple unforced errors to compound the situation.
   1645. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5667432)
What I don't get about McCain is the media reporting that now that he's retiring (and facing a grave illness) he's free to speak his mind, per those close to him.

But I thought that he was The "Maverick" at the head of the "Straight Talk Express."
   1646. tshipman Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5667435)
I cite him because (1) he's a con law professor, (2) he provides regular legal commentary on these matters, (3) in a blog which is easy to link to and quote from, and (4) while he certainly leans a bit to the right he's not unhinged and is generally objective. It's not like (as to point 4) I'm citing Joe diGenova.

Turley has been highly critical on plenty of occasions of Trump and his legal team on both the Comey/Mueller/Russia probe and on the Clifford affair. See, e.g., Turley's column today on Rudy Giuliani. (In today's column Turley uses the same word to describe Rudy's recent interviews that I used a few days ago: "disastrous.") But because Turley doesn't sign on to the various unhinged legal theories of the left he's seen as disqualifying to the left.

I cite to Dershowitz for similar reasons. If someone can provide another con law professor who is regularly commenting on these issues in blog or column form I'd be glad to read him/her and link to him or her. But the diGenova Rule applies: the person can't be utterly unhinged and basically an advocate for one side or the other, like Laurence Tribe is.


Lawfareblog generally has excellent analysis of the Trump admin. Orin Kerr regularly posts there, for example.
   1647. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5667438)
Who in the world is Jonathan Turley and what is he doing on your television?

I'm agnostic on the merits of Turley's commentary, on this or any other topic, but he has a long record as an attention whore, ready & willing to comment on any issue, regardless of how closely it is to his areas of expertise. There was a story years ago about a GWU law student having difficulty hearing back from Turley on some matter, so he eventually left a message indicating he was from CBS News, and Turley called back immediately, although he was apparently less than pleased by the student's ruse.
   1648. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5667456)
Ray, #1645:
What I don't get about McCain is the media reporting that now that he's retiring (and facing a grave illness) he's free to speak his mind, per those close to him.
But I thought that he was The "Maverick" at the head of the "Straight Talk Express."

Ray's sarcastic skepticism is entirely well placed here. One always had to ignore whatever John McCain said, while watching the things McCain did. For example, hanging up a "DO NOT ADMIT" photo of Donald Trump outside his own funeral.

Maybe McCain's career of image-building "dissent" and "nonconformity" came from a genuine desire to move policy by a micron here or there, but his votes nearly always fell into line. Which is why his wee hours thumb's down on Obamacare was a moment of actual political drama.

And it's why Trump egged on a crowd to boo the dying McCain just one week ago, at another one of Trump's rallies. But somehow I don't think a hundred booings are ever going to provide Donald Trump with the salve for McCain's burn.
   1649. Howie Menckel Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5667462)
I'm agnostic on the merits of Turley's commentary, on this or any other topic, but he has a long record as an attention whore, ready & willing to comment on any issue, regardless of how closely it is to his areas of expertise.

I don't necessarily disagree. most of my point was that someone who expresses ignorance of who he is doesn't help his own credibility.
   1650. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5667464)
Clapper's story in #1647 is very funny. If anyone has even the slightest information that it didn't happen quite that way, I ask you NOT to post it.
   1651. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5667470)
It's all politics. W Bush said bad things about him too.
[Citation needed.]

I love how the FLTB thinks he knows better than McCain how people treated McCain.
There will be plenty of draft dodgers there including W Bush.
Bush served in the TANG.
   1652. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5667474)
Bush served in the TANG.


Barely, but yes. Which is infinitely more than cadet bone spurs.
   1653. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 06, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5667475)
Put another way, one could call W a draft dodger WRT to service of guys like McCain and John Kerry. I wouldn't do it, but one could make that argument. But in comparison to Trump? Only a troll would do that.
   1654. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5667477)
Tang is a drink with a patriotic story behind it that's mostly bogus when you look at it, so it's a very good acronym for GW Bush's military record.
   1655. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 07, 2018 at 04:22 AM (#5667620)

New thread, up very early.
Page 17 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17

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
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(84 - 11:40am, Sep 23)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(66 - 11:37am, Sep 23)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(527 - 11:28am, Sep 23)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(383 - 10:56am, Sep 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(2113 - 10:55am, Sep 23)
Last: perros

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for September 22-23, 2018
(88 - 10:54am, Sep 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(10 - 10:41am, Sep 23)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT - August/September 2018 College Football thread
(282 - 10:07am, Sep 23)
Last: dlf

NewsblogDodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig burglarized for the fourth time
(8 - 7:47am, Sep 23)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogDetroit Tigers' Victor Martinez: Saturday will be final game of career
(16 - 6:51am, Sep 23)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogWho’s in and who’s out of the MLB postseason?
(14 - 4:35am, Sep 23)
Last: QLE

NewsblogSimon - Why Does Bryce Harper Have -25 Defensive Runs Saved?
(11 - 1:06am, Sep 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogWainwright impresses Giants' Bochy
(10 - 12:33am, Sep 23)
Last: QLE

NewsblogYuli Gurriel has 7-RBI night as Astros clinch playoff berth
(7 - 11:30pm, Sep 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogHearing WFAN’s John Sterling home run call on WEEI was a weird juxtaposition
(15 - 11:01pm, Sep 22)
Last: TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky"

Page rendered in 0.5195 seconds
46 querie(s) executed