US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[eddie]

LOL

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Hmm, judging by that I wonder if you read the article. Bradley is not giving his knowledgeable opinion on what he doesn't know. He is talking about the facts we do know, what Cohen pled guilty to and his expertise in that area. I don't see anything in the article about Bradley claiming to have 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation. His claim is quite simple and well explained. Micheal Cohen pled guilty to something that is not a crime.

Oh, but I did read the article just as I have also read the full sentencing documents posted regarding Cohen. Please note that in the quote of mine you cited I did not say Smith claimed to have 'inside' knowledge; also the phrase cited is actually a question: "But does Smith have some 'inside' knowledge of the substance and extent of the SCO's investigation or is he, like the rest of us, going on what we got?" The question was asked in a more rhetorical manner, rather than a statement about Smith's actual knowledge. As for his statement, yes, it is simple and it is, at best, an opinion; and as I pointed out and you have stated yourself in the second and third sentences of the quote of you'r I posted above:

Bradley is not giving his knowledgeable opinion on what he doesn't know. He is talking about the facts we do know, what Cohen pled guilty to and his expertise in that area.

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). And, in the current state of knowledge of the real specifics of the SCO's case, he knows about as much as you and I know...

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...

Michael Cohen's former attorney, Lanny Davis, responds to claims that the testimony of President Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen cannot be trusted, says prosecutors from the Southern District of New York presented witnesses and documents that corroborate his former client's version of events.

Oh, and its from Fox News, you know the 'non-mainstream' media outlet...













<O>

[u crank]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by u crank

And yes he is a Republican.

So is Mueller.




But in general about credentials: One should not take it for granted that someone with appropriate knowledge base tells the truth. Some fields, sure. Where it is hard for a layman to understand, then one is forced to take the word of an 'expert'. I am not talking about US politics specifically, but in general.

Example: Last year there was a new Titanic doc (Titanic: New Evidence) in which Senan Molony, a Titanic historian and an author with 30 years of experience, made claims that he 100% knew were false. Claims that has been known since 1912.

Dont stick to credentials, but the message.

Anything you hear or read, you can check by taking your phone from your pocket. There is no excuse to being ignorant today.

Again, this is not about US politics solely, just wanted to say it in general because the ignorance of people makes me mad.


EDIT: And yes, I've relied on credentials myself before I am sure, but I do try to not to whenever possible.

[Rockstar]

...just wanted to say it in general because the ignorance of people makes me mad.

Internet Crusader:

A person on the internet who goes around preaching what they think is right or wrong and acting upon it.

[Dowly]

Says the one who believes blog posts over scientific data.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

So is Mueller.

So was John McCain. So is Jeff Flake. So is/was James Comey. Etc.

I agree with what you are saying but expertise means something.

Dont stick to credentials, but the message.

I believe in my case above with regards to Bradley A. Smith I am.

[Bilge_Rat]

well again the whole problem with trying to charge Trump with a criminal campaign finance violation is the fact that lawyers can't even agree on whether, even if the facts are true, it was a criminal violation of the law. Some argue yes, some argue no.

One of the fundamental principles of criminal law is that someone can only be found guilty of a crime if the statute is crystal clear and not subject to interpretation. You can't be found guilty of violating the law and subject to potential jail time when it is not even clear what the law is. Here half the lawyers in America are arguing that the actions of Trump, even if true, are not a crime.


So no, even though the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC are getting all hot and bothered over this, don't expect to see Trump in a courtroom anytime soon.

[u crank]

In the hunt to take down Trump, Robert Mueller's probe has snared a number of individuals, although none for 'Russian collusion' yet. Some like Micheal Cohen and Paul Manafort are actually guilty of crimes committed without the help of the Special Counsel. Others it would appear are guilty of crimes because of the Special Counsel. One such case is that of Micheal Flynn whose biggest crime was being a harsh critic of the Obama administration. Obama (Flynn claims) forced him into early retirement in 2014 over disagreements about policy and then advised Trump not to hire him. Trump of course did appoint him as National Security Advisor.

Now we are getting some revelations that shed light into not just the Obama administration's FBI misdeeds but the overreach of Robert Mueller's probe. The Judge who will sentence Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan received a sentencing memo filed by Flynn's lawyers this week. The memo sheds new light on the Flynn-FBI meeting in January 2017. That meeting eventually led to Flynn being charged with lying to the FBI. How that all played out and some new and disturbing facts is described in this Wall Street Journal article by Kim Strassel.

https://outline.com/GL9ZLM

The meeting

...was arranged by then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn on other business, then suggested he sit down with two agents to clear up the Russia question. Mr. McCabe urged Mr. Flynn to conduct the interview with no lawyer present—to make things easier.

The agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him “relaxed” and “unguarded.” Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have “gotten away” with such a move in a more “organized” administration.

Judge Sullivan has run into this kind of shady operating tactics by the FBI before.

..as he wrote for the Journal last year, he got a “wake-up call” in 2008 while overseeing the trial of then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Judge Sullivan ultimately assigned a lawyer to investigate Justice Department misconduct.

The investigator’s report found prosecutors had engaged in deliberate and repeated ethical violations, withholding key evidence from the defense. It also excoriated the FBI for failing to write up 302s and for omitting key facts from those it did write.

Take a wild guess at who was the FBI Director for that case. Yep. Non other than Mr. 'straight arrow' Robert S. Mueller III.

One of the more remarkable tidbits is the date of the Flynn 302 which was used to convict him of lying. Aug. 22, 2017, seven months after the interview.

Texts from Mr. Strzok and testimony from Mr. Comey both suggest the 302 was written long before then. Was the 302 edited in the interim? If so, by whom, and at whose direction?

That would be interesting to know.

Judges have the ability to reject plea deals and require a prosecutor to make a case at trial. The criminal-justice system isn’t only about holding defendants accountable; trials also provide oversight of investigators and their tactics. And judges are not obliged to follow prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations.

No one knows how Judge Sullivan will rule. His reputation is for being no-nonsense, a straight shooter, an advocate of government transparency.

[Onkel Neal]

[August]

This guy makes a pretty good case for repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the appointment of Senators back to the states.


http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/10/...ting-senators/

Some rightfully bemoan the deterioration of collegiality. Others, like Dingell, less persuasively argue the upper chamber, with its lopsided representation, is an affront to democratic governance. Largely lacking in this debate are attempts to address the more fundamental question: What is the purpose of the Senate?
The Founders, of course, had a clear answer. In drafting the Constitution, they created a robust national government whose powers far exceeded what had preceeded it under the Articles of Confederation. The Supremacy Clause, for example, ensured that statutes passed by Congress would supersede state law. Some feared that under such a system the state governments would stand defenseless in the face of federal power.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

That was nice.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

This guy makes a pretty good case for repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the appointment of Senators back to the states.

Good point. The original purpose of doing it that way was so the States could retain their autonomy while placing themselves under control of a greater power. The strong central government was necessary to settle disputes between States, get the States to work together on matters of national concern, and to represent them as a whole when dealing with foreign policy.

The House of Representatives represents the people, and members are elected by the people they represent. The Senate represents the States, and members are appointed by those States. The President represents the nation as a whole to other nations, and is elected by a body (the Electoral College) designed strictly for that purpose. When the election of Senators was handed over to the people it was tacitly recognized that the States were no longer independent nations banded together for their common protection and cooperation, but were now reduced to the same subservient level as provinces in other countries.

Is it a coincidence that this happened in the same year (1913) that the Federal Income Tax was imposed upon us? Probably, but it's always fun to speculate.

[vienna]

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...onderful+trump









<O>

[August]