Quote:
Originally Posted by vienna
While he may have some expertise, he is not really a 'definitive expert' since I am pretty sure you could easily find other equally or better experienced experts who would disagree with him and his position(s).
|
Now you are making me laugh. First of all I didn't say he was a 'definitive expert'. You did. I said here is an opinion
"from a guy who may actually know what he is talking about." Does he know what he is talking about? Well the discussion is about Micheal Cohen and campaign finance violations. Is Mr. Smith a knowledgeable commentator on this subject? As a graduate of Harvard Law School, a law professor and a former head of the FEC... I'm going to say yes. And yes he is a Republican. I won't hold that against him. Are there other opinions that disagree with his? Probably. I never said there wasn't.
Quote:
|
If you want a bit of insight from someone who probably knows a 'bit' more about Cohen and the SCO's case against him and Trump, maybe this fellow might meet you standards: Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's attorney in the case...
|
As his lawyer I would expect that he would. Not much of a lawyer if he doesn't. But again we are talking about two different things. Cohen has already pled guilty to a crime. That is what Mr. Smith is commenting about. I see nowhere in Smith's article any speculation about what the SCO knows or will do. Do you?
As for Lanny Davis meeting my standards, I guess you don't know what my standards are.
Davis is probably a good lawyer, but by today's standard that isn't necessarily much of a talent. Michael Avenatti is a lawyer as well. I see Davis as just a little bit (but not much) less sleazier than his client. And of course he is an in the tank Democratic operative and unabashed Hillary supporter but I won't hold that against him.
Quote:
|
Oh, and its from Fox News, you know the 'non-mainstream' media outlet...
|
Not sure who that bit of sarcasm was aimed at.
As a habit I usually check out all the major US news sites on the web with my morning coffee. Ah the life of a retiree.
I don't have cable TV by choice. Frankly I don't see much difference in news reporting by the major players...MSNBC, CNN and Fox. Make no mistake they all are biased. The idea that all the networks except Fox are neutral news providers is laughable at best. I also see no difference between night time commentators Sean Hannity, Don Lemon and Rachael Maddow except their obvious political bias. They could be on the payroll of their respective political parties for all we know.
And...speaking of Fox news here is an article they carried from The Washington Post by Marc Thiessen this morning.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc...up-in-one-word
Quote:
There's a name for this in classic negotiating strategy. It's called "leverage." Good negotiators use leverage (something they have, which their adversary wants) to obtain what are called "concessions" (something their adversary has, which they want). The result is what experts call "compromise." This is how the civilized world gets things done.
But in a fit of pique, Democrats are throwing away their leverage, insisting that they will never -- under any circumstances -- give Trump the wall he so desperately wants. The reason? Because he wants it and they despise him.
|
No one has ever accused Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi of being the sharpest knives in the drawer and for good reason.
Quote:
So if Democrats want to get anything done, they can't ram it through over GOP objections, because Trump has leverage, too -- in the form of a pen he can use to sign or veto legislation. To get anything done, Democrats have to negotiate -- and compromise.
The answer for Democrats is simple: Don't refuse the wall; use the wall.
|