TRUMP 2016

[EyeKhan]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-top-...122423972.html
Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
-“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen’”

Top law firms are refusing to represent the POTUS because he has a history of stiffing people and a lack of self control. Not to mention the distaste of being associated with his policies and administration.

Lawyers are turning away the President of the United States. What a world!

I don't blame them one single bit. When your reputation is to run up big bills and then pay only a portion of what you agreed to up front once the work is done, eventually you're going to have trouble hiring people to work for you.

I'd have more respect if the law firms stated, "We think he might be guilty and generally we like to represent the innocent." Who wakes up in the morning wanting to defend child molesters, rapists and murderers? Not everyone indicted is guilty of course but I have a real hard time with people taking money to defend the worst shits of society. If you get court appointed, I get it, part of the system but people like OJ's lawyers make me sick.

You can't have a real justice system if people accused of heinous crimes cannot get reasonably good legal representation. And from what I've heard, court appointed lawyers tend to be WAY over-worked and under-resourced, so I wouldn't consider that option reasonably good. While it would be a shame if our total asshole of a president can't get a law firm to represent him, that would not be related to our justice system -- it's related to his lack of personal integrity.

[Enoch the Red]

You can't have a real justice system if people accused of heinous crimes cannot get reasonably good legal representation.

I think that might be part of the draw for Lewkowski. Unless, I suppose, they happen to be fraternity members accused of rape.

[Flixy]

Even for guilty people you need lawyers to make the process work if you ask me.

[EyeKhan]

Even for guilty people you need lawyers to make the process work if you ask me.

Of course! Because without a legitimate trial, guilt hasn't been determined. And without reasonable legal representation, you can't have a legitimate trial. Yes, there are cases where guilt is obvious, but sometimes guilt seems obvious even when the accused isn't actually guilty. So you always have to have a legitimate trial, or the process can't be trusted.

[Aimless]

This is futile. Lewk's position is generally that criminals should have no rights other than the right to die, not even due process rights. At the moment Lewk--or the justice system--determines that someone is guilty of a crime, his rights to eg. due process are nullified with the nullification extending backwards in time. Lewk is also inclined to rule on guilt in advance. For these reasons, he won't buy any arguments about the importance of things like access to good legal counsel, protection from illegal searches, protection from excessive punishment, etc. At best, he'll pay lip service to such rights.

[Flixy]

Of course! Because without a legitimate trial, guilt hasn't been determined. And without reasonable legal representation, you can't have a legitimate trial. Yes, there are cases where guilt is obvious, but sometimes guilt seems obvious even when the accused isn't actually guilty. So you always have to have a legitimate trial, or the process can't be trusted.

Plus even if someone is guilty but gets off on a procedural error, that is a check on the procedures which are there to protect all citizens from the government infringing their civil rights (trying to put this in a way lewk might approve )

[Enoch the Red]

Plus even if someone is guilty but gets off on a procedural error, that is a check on the procedures which are there to protect all citizens from the government infringing their civil rights (trying to put this in a way lewk might approve )

I believe Lewk's argument would go something like, use the evidence that was improperly collected, assuming it was valid, and then punish the person who improperly collected it.

[Steely Glint]

Comey: Trump told him to drop the Flynn investigation, but said he did not understand the Presidents remarks to be referring to the wider Russia investigation.

EDIT:

Also, Comey writes pretty well. I'd tag him write the book about the whole Trump era in a decade or two.

Also, Trump leaned on Comey pretty hard to 'get out' the fact that Trump wasn't personally under investigation by the FBI. Seems to have implicitly threatened his job.

[Steely Glint]

[wiggin]

Comey: Trump told him to drop the Flynn investigation, but said he did not understand the Presidents remarks to be referring to the wider Russia investigation.

EDIT:

Also, Comey writes pretty well. I'd tag him write the book about the whole Trump era in a decade or two.

Also, Trump leaned on Comey pretty hard to 'get out' the fact that Trump wasn't personally under investigation by the FBI. Seems to have implicitly threatened his job.

The narrative he presents is coherent, but I think it also shows that much of the criticism directed at him over his handling of the email issue during the campaign is perhaps misguided. I don't deny that Comey made some mistakes, but I think his moves on such sensitive political matters are carefully thought out. Tellingly, he mentions in his prepared remarks that he felt there would be a 'duty to correct' the record should they publicly say the FBI is not investigating Trump personally; that is, if it changes they would have to immediately say so. I think that jives with much of his disclosures during the campaign.

I'm not sure I agree with all of Comey's moves - for example, I think he should have filled in the AG on Trump's very improper (and possibly illegal) requests, and I do think he mishandled the Clinton emails investigation. But I respect the fact that he has clearly thought through these moves with a great deal of sophistication, and it appears, integrity.

[Loki]

Someone who acts with integrity doesn't knowingly mislead the public days before a presidential election.

[Steely Glint]

The narrative he presents is coherent, but I think it also shows that much of the criticism directed at him over his handling of the email issue during the campaign is perhaps misguided. I don't deny that Comey made some mistakes, but I think his moves on such sensitive political matters are carefully thought out. Tellingly, he mentions in his prepared remarks that he felt there would be a 'duty to correct' the record should they publicly say the FBI is not investigating Trump personally; that is, if it changes they would have to immediately say so. I think that jives with much of his disclosures during the campaign.

I'm not sure I agree with all of Comey's moves - for example, I think he should have filled in the AG on Trump's very improper (and possibly illegal) requests, and I do think he mishandled the Clinton emails investigation. But I respect the fact that he has clearly thought through these moves with a great deal of sophistication, and it appears, integrity.

I'm not sure having carefully thought out reasoning for fucking up is much of a mitigating factor. Though, as I said before, I don't hold him fully responsible for the letter fiasco. He released a letter with pretty moderate wording, and they chose to act like it was the greatest political drama since Watergate while, by comparison, ignoring dozens of scandals about Trump.

[Steely Glint]

Oh, if you're into Bored Song of Ice and Fire Reader style theory-crafting based on specific wording but about real things, checkout his use of the past tense when he referred to Trump not being under investigation.

[Aimless]

Certainly very thought provoking:

https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.busi...r-memes-2017-6

[Loki]

I'm not sure having carefully thought out reasoning for fucking up is much of a mitigating factor. Though, as I said before, I don't hold him fully responsible for the letter fiasco. He released a letter with pretty moderate wording, and they chose to act like it was the greatest political drama since Watergate while, by comparison, ignoring dozens of scandals about Trump.

It was foreseeable by anyone with any political sense. And Comey has political sense.

[wiggin]

Someone who acts with integrity doesn't knowingly mislead the public days before a presidential election.

Do you have any evidence that he misled the public? I believe that he believes he had a duty to inform the public about the investigation, and that there was no untruthfulness or intent to mislead. But we've already litigated this argument to no avail. I just believe that the insight into his thinking revealed by this statement is further support to my assertions.

I agree with you that his letter before the election probably did Clinton no favors, and obviously I'm aghast that Trump won the election. But that doesn't mean that (a) this was Comey's goal (even if he might have predicted the impact on the election, it still might have been an undesirable consequence of a necessary action) and (b) the alternatives available to him were more ethical.

I'm not sure having carefully thought out reasoning for fucking up is much of a mitigating factor. Though, as I said before, I don't hold him fully responsible for the letter fiasco. He released a letter with pretty moderate wording, and they chose to act like it was the greatest political drama since Watergate while, by comparison, ignoring dozens of scandals about Trump.

Steely, I don't disagree that it doesn't absolve him for mishandling the email investigation. But it does absolve him (IMO) of the sharper critiques brought by both the right and left about his ulterior motives. Loki and plenty of people I know have variously called him a traitor and other similar language and I think that's insulting and incorrect. He was placed in the middle of an incredibly tricky position with a wildly sensitive investigation, and every utterance he made or didn't make would be subject to scrutiny. I prefer to believe that where (and if) he went wrong, he did it from a genuine desire to chart the ideal course rather than from another motive.


One thing that has resonated with me about the discussion surrounding the Comey firing is that utter hypocrisy of partisan Democrats on this issue. During 2016 Democrats were routinely calling for Comey's head because of his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I believe it was appropriate that Obama did not either interfere in the investigation or pressure/fire Comey for the simple reason that it's important that our system retains its integrity; the FBI should be independent of political pressure from the executive. But those same Democrats (including a depressing number of my social circles) who wanted his head on a pike last year now lionize him for standing up to Trump and providing evidence of potential obstruction of justice. They were furious at the firing, talking about how it set such a terrible precedent and was an overreach by Trump. Again, I agree Trump's move to fire Comey is deeply troubling and suspect, as were his interactions with Comey prior to the firing. But there should be some consistency here; he can't be both a partisan hack and a principled civil servant. I prefer to think he is a man with a deep commitment to his job and his integrity who has made mistakes.

[Loki]

Then-FBI Director James Comey knew that a critical piece of information relating to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email was fake -- created by Russian intelligence -- but he feared that if it became public it would undermine the probe and the Justice Department itself, according to multiple officials with knowledge of the process.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politi...nce/index.html

[LittleFuzzy]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politi...nce/index.html

Yes. Which was why he ended the investigation during the summer. You're not objecting to that, you're objecting to him acknowledging that it was reopened later when they received some new material regarding it during their separate investigation into Weiner. Which fits what he indicated he warned President Trump about, that providing a public assurance declaring Trump was not under investigation would require providing an equally public acknowledgement if that situation changed.

[Steely Glint]

Steely, I don't disagree that it doesn't absolve him for mishandling the email investigation. But it does absolve him (IMO) of the sharper critiques brought by both the right and left about his ulterior motives. Loki and plenty of people I know have variously called him a traitor and other similar language and I think that's insulting and incorrect. He was placed in the middle of an incredibly tricky position with a wildly sensitive investigation, and every utterance he made or didn't make would be subject to scrutiny. I prefer to believe that where (and if) he went wrong, he did it from a genuine desire to chart the ideal course rather than from another motive.

I do think the 'Comey had malicious motives' explanation has largely been ruled out, yes.

One thing that has resonated with me about the discussion surrounding the Comey firing is that utter hypocrisy of partisan Democrats on this issue. During 2016 Democrats were routinely calling for Comey's head because of his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I believe it was appropriate that Obama did not either interfere in the investigation or pressure/fire Comey for the simple reason that it's important that our system retains its integrity; the FBI should be independent of political pressure from the executive. But those same Democrats (including a depressing number of my social circles) who wanted his head on a pike last year now lionize him for standing up to Trump and providing evidence of potential obstruction of justice. They were furious at the firing, talking about how it set such a terrible precedent and was an overreach by Trump. Again, I agree Trump's move to fire Comey is deeply troubling and suspect, as were his interactions with Comey prior to the firing. But there should be some consistency here; he can't be both a partisan hack and a principled civil servant. I prefer to think he is a man with a deep commitment to his job and his integrity who has made mistakes.

I don't think it's hypocritical to think Comey should have been fired for the letter, but that he shouldn't have been fired for failure to can the investigation into Flynn.

I also don't think it's hypocritical to think Comey should have been fired, then change your mind after more information about his motives and character become available.

I also think the word 'partisan' is one that could largely do with removal from the US political vocabulary.

[Steely Glint]

An Olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics to the Republicans leaning heavily on the 'but he said Trump wasn't under investigation' defense.

[Ominous Gamer]

McCain... holy shit... If that was any indication of his health and mental state the nation at least dodged that bullet.

[Steely Glint]

What's he said? I listened to most of the hearing and didn't even realize he was there, he didn't seem to ask any questions.

EDIT: just read what he said. jeez.

[Ominous Gamer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9c9857b7367c

A mix of "but her emails" and incoherent rambling that could be used for training on how to spot a stroke.

[Steely Glint]

“I think it's hard to reconcile, in one case you reach a complete conclusion, and on the other side you have not,” McCain said. “I think that's a double standard there, to tell you the truth.”

Both sidesism in nutshell. You have to hit both sides equally, no matter the facts of the case.

[Aimless]

McCain... holy shit... If that was any indication of his health and mental state the nation at least dodged that bullet.

You are mistaken, that is not an indictment of his character or his intellect. McCain gives us a heartwarming spirit-lifting chest-swelling vision of the ideal Republican, offering principled resistance to the threat of Trump without ever losing sight of the second greatest threat to democracy: the hypocrisy of partisan Democrats.

[Aimless]

I don't think it's hypocritical to think Comey should have been fired for the letter, but that he shouldn't have been fired for failure to can the investigation into Flynn.

I also don't think it's hypocritical to think Comey should have been fired, then change your mind after more information about his motives and character become available.

I also think the word 'partisan' is one that could largely do with removal from the US political vocabulary.

It is of course not necessarily hypocritical to be ambivalent about Comey's conduct in the two different cases, or to see him as being ambiguous, or to change one's view of him based on the information that has come to light since the election, or to just change one's mind. We can be conflicted, confused, inconsistent, irrational, mistaken, misinformed, insufficiently informed or just of a different mind, without being hypocritical. People are complex, imperfect, multi-dimensional entities--Comey as much as those who judge him. We see hypocrisy where want to see it, and this preoccupation with the imagined hypocrisy of our political opponents is just another expression of the very partisanship Wiggin decries in his passionate defense of the Kevin Costner of principled Republican resistance. Frankly, I have yet to encounter an accusation of hypocrisy from a person who isn't himself guilty of hypocrisy or some other "unforgivable" philosophical sin, myself included. But that's only really relevant when you're fighting. Not everything a hypocrite says, does or believes is hypocritical, nor is every instance of hypocrisy a sign of anything more reprehensible than basic human fallibility.

[Ominous Gamer]

Twitter Link

Little Marco is sooo over having McCain steal the show.

[Steely Glint]

Oh, as if Rubio's shit about how when the president said 'hope' he was actually just expressing an honest wish rather than giving an implied instruction stank any better.

Get in the fucking sea Marco Rubio.

[Loki]

McCain is doing his best to prove that Palin would have actually been an improvement.

[Aimless]

I'm enjoying the reactions from Fox's anti-McCain audience.