Octopus Overlords

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:32 pm Comey comes out firing against Devin Nunes' sham investigation in his motion to quash the thanksgiving subpeona:

In Thursday's filing, his lawyers argue that the House Judiciary and Oversight committees "have conducted an investigation in a manner that exceeds a proper legislative purpose insofar as members of the committees have established a practice of selectively leaking witnesses' testimony in order to support a false political narrative, while subjecting witnesses to a variety of abuse."

"Mr. Comey asks this Court's intervention not to avoid giving testimony but to prevent the Joint Committee from using the pretext of a closed interview to peddle a distorted, partisan political narrative about the Clinton and Russian investigations through selective leaks," his lawyers added in court papers.

Seems unlikely that he would win a legal fight here. I'm not an expert on this, but I strongly suspect that the committee has discretion to have their hearing be closed door or open door, and while his leaking suspicions are reasonable, I'd be reluctant as a judge to deny it based on what they may or may not do with the information.

Though, if Comey can delay hearings until January, then the Democratic House would be perfectly happy to cancel the hearing (or have Comey but switch / broaden the topics, and make it open door).

We are living in a comic book. That's the only explanation.

Buzzfeed: The plan--DURING the campaign--was to give Putin a $50 million penthouse in Trump Tower Moscow.

If we're being honest, animals are pretty great.

Earlier today when the Cohen stuff was all over the place, I went over to Fox News and their headline article was something about a Mexican murderer. I had to search through a ton of stuff to find the barest mention of what is quite possibly one of the biggest Russian probe developments of the year.

(Just checked - their current article is TRUMP IN THE CLEAR? JARRETT: Cohen guilty plea does absolutely nothing to show wrongdoing)

Moliere wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:19 am If we're being honest, animals are pretty great.

You can't make burgers out of Cohens, for example.

Well, not legally.

Deregulate!

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:25 am Earlier today when the Cohen stuff was all over the place, I went over to Fox News and their headline article was something about a Mexican murderer. I had to search through a ton of stuff to find the barest mention of what is quite possibly one of the biggest Russian probe developments of the year.

(Just checked - their current article is TRUMP IN THE CLEAR? JARRETT: Cohen guilty plea does absolutely nothing to show wrongdoing)

Both sides. Media liberal bias. MSM something something.

Earlier today my news feed produced a Fox article that was headlined "MS-13 member found among refugee caravan!" and all I could think was "well, that made the tear gassing of children worth while. Well done. 300+ million people are now safe from that dude. Followed by, if they found an MS-13 guy without ever letting anyone in or processing anyone, just imagine how easy it would be to find and filter them out if the US authorities actually got closer than tear gas range.

I never imagined that Fox News would sink this low. I know, I'm naive, but god damn it, they are completely complicit in this administration's inhumanity. I always accepted that they were just giving conservatives a voice they could call their own in the news, not a propaganda wing of the GOP. There's a big difference between being a conservative and being a GOP member. Even in a perfect world, you are not your party, but you are your political views.

I don't know about you fellows, but I'm beginning to suspect that our president hasn't been entirely truthful.

Suppose Mueller proves that Trump won the election with Russian help (because a hotel deal on the side isn't going to cut it), and his findings get past the administration's efforts to suppress them. So what? Is there any scenario that tests whether a sitting president can be indicted? Assuming not, is there any scenario in which 60 senators vote to impeach him? 14 Republicans would have to grow a spine, with no Democratic defectors.

I'm enjoying the drama as much as the next guy, but I wonder if it signifies anything.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:33 am I don't know about you fellows, but I'm beginning to suspect that our president hasn't been entirely truthful.

Suppose Mueller proves that Trump won the election with Russian help (because a hotel deal on the side isn't going to cut it), and his findings get past the administration's efforts to suppress them. So what? Is there any scenario that tests whether a sitting president can be indicted? Assuming not, is there any scenario in which 60 senators vote to impeach him? 14 Republicans would have to grow a spine, with no Democratic defectors.

I'm enjoying the drama as much as the next guy, but I wonder if it signifies anything.

Whatever happens, and I haven't a clue what will happen, it's important to document the truth. History if nothing else, will care. I also think that truth for truth's sake is important, which is another sin that makes me hate drumpf more than a little.

No matter what comes of any of this, even if it's nothing, it will have been worth it just to get the facts on the table and in the light of day. If it turns out that there is nothing to be done or that the American public don't care, so be it.

The investigation and report is the right thing to do and are their own reason for existing.

New Fox Headline: Drumpf is winning the trade war, China has already cut tariffs.

Isn't that wonderful? He's winning. Good for him.

For the record China has been increasing and cutting tariffs since Drumpf took office, and probably earlier. Presumably they actively manage their tariffs on a regular basis.

China currently has a 40% tariff on US cars, vs US tariffs of ~27% on cars made in China.

He's not "winning" anything. At least China cutting some tariffs by 2.5% isn't proof of it.

He's winning the stupidity race.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:33 am I don't know about you fellows, but I'm beginning to suspect that our president hasn't been entirely truthful.

Suppose Mueller proves that Trump won the election with Russian help (because a hotel deal on the side isn't going to cut it), and his findings get past the administration's efforts to suppress them. So what? Is there any scenario that tests whether a sitting president can be indicted? Assuming not, is there any scenario in which 60 senators vote to impeach him? 14 Republicans would have to grow a spine, with no Democratic defectors.

I'm enjoying the drama as much as the next guy, but I wonder if it signifies anything.

I'll bet that in the end the Trumps will be claiming that, yes, we schemed with the Russians, but the collusion doesn't matter because we never expected to win. Hillary was thought to be unbeatable, and the campaign was just a platform for the family brand. It was all about getting Trump Tower Moscow, not the White House.

(There is even a sense in which this is true. It's very possible that Putin expected Trump to lose but that their support for Trump was intended to destabilize American democracy and wound Clinton's presidency right from the start.)

Nauseatingly, this will be enough cover for some Republicans to reject impeachment. Hard to know how many, but that could depend on how clean Mike Pence looks in all of this.

We'll know Trump is finished on the day Pence comes out of hiding to start working his own brand rather than to defend Trump.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:36 am I'll bet that in the end the Trumps will be claiming that, yes, we schemed with the Russians, but the collusion doesn't matter because we never expected to win. Hillary was thought to be unbeatable, and the campaign was just a platform for the family brand. It was all about getting Trump Tower Moscow, not the White House.

Did you look at Trump's Twitter feed before writing this?! From about 5 AM this morning:

POTUS wrote:Oh, I get it! I am a very good developer, happily living my life, when I see our Country going in the wrong direction (to put it mildly). Against all odds, I decide to run for President & continue to run my business-very legal & very cool, talked about it on the campaign trail...Lightly looked at doing a building somewhere in Russia. Put up zero money, zero guarantees and didn’t do the project. Witch Hunt!

Edit to add:

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:33 am I don't know about you fellows, but I'm beginning to suspect that our president hasn't been entirely truthful.

Suppose Mueller proves that Trump won the election with Russian help (because a hotel deal on the side isn't going to cut it), and his findings get past the administration's efforts to suppress them. So what? Is there any scenario that tests whether a sitting president can be indicted? Assuming not, is there any scenario in which 60 senators vote to impeach him? 14 Republicans would have to grow a spine, with no Democratic defectors.

I'm enjoying the drama as much as the next guy, but I wonder if it signifies anything.

67 Senators. 20 Republicans and no Dem defectors (47 Dem + 20 Republicans)

Unrelated. I hate giving credit to Trump for anything, but I really think he’s the greatest con man in US history unless we are the stupidest American public in US history for falling for a horrid con.

If I thought Trump wasn't a fucking moron or had any sense of humor that didn't involve denigrating minorities and women I'd think he was trolling us with a 'light treason' reference. Instead this is probably going to be remembered as his, "I'm not a crook!" tweet.

Unrelated. I hate giving credit to Trump for anything, but I really think he’s the greatest con man in US history unless we are the stupidest American public in US history for falling for a horrid con.

You left out another option. Which is a mix of the 2nd and an increasingly broken political system that has delivered two awful Presidents "this century".

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:04 pmI'm too tired to track down Flake's original, or even morphing "pledge". It's hard to imagine any wording of the pledge that would erase my contempt for him.

Morphed or unmorphed I agree with you that he sucks.

I think the voters he is trying to attract are the ones who won't remember this pledge at all but will remember seeing his face and name on television when he made it. They will be left with the impression that he is principled because the coverage of the pledge since there is little to no coverage of his lack of follow through.

The irony is that Trump torpedoed a potential line of defense with his blabbermouthing.

He could have just said he had no knowledge of the Trump Tower deal; it was something Cohen and company were setting up behind the scenes. Unbelievable? Sure, but at least it was a lifeline.

However, he keeps talking about this deal as if he knew about it (which he did), but you DON'T ADMIT THAT IN PUBLIC. One statement I read on CNN he actually said "I didn't want to do the deal so I didn't do it."

The guy is a clueless moron, and can't grasp the idea of plausible deniability.

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:15 am I think the voters he is trying to attract are the ones who won't remember this pledge at all but will remember seeing his face and name on television when he made it. They will be left with the impression that he is principled because the coverage of the pledge since there is little to no coverage of his lack of follow through.

Thanks, that helps me understand things better.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:02 am If I thought Trump wasn't a fucking moron or had any sense of humor that didn't involve denigrating minorities and women I'd think he was trolling us with a 'light treason' reference. Instead this is probably going to be remembered as his, "I'm not a crook!" tweet.

Unrelated. I hate giving credit to Trump for anything, but I really think he’s the greatest con man in US history unless we are the stupidest American public in US history for falling for a horrid con.

You left out another option. Which is a mix of the 2nd and an increasingly broken political system that has delivered two awful Presidents "this century".

I'll throw in some more factors.

Drumpf has been branding himself for decades. Branding works, and even I will admit that he's pretty good at it. No politician can compete with him on branding.

Second, the timing was right for an outsider. Who should it be? Branding.

Third, some Americans aren't conned, they like that he's a monster. How many? No idea. Some. And they are deplorable.

Fourth, some Americans are conditioned by their party to be easily conned. Drumpf is not a conservative and does not support conservative values. Doesn't matter, he's GOP, therefore he's my man. Related to this is that they are being conned by someone they trust (GOP in this case). With a trust relationship already in place, a con is much easier to pull off.

Fifth, some Americans are low information voters. Imagine if you only caught the evening news on Fox every few weeks. Of freakin' course you'd think everything is awesome.

Sixth, some Americans have such a warped world view that they see the world exactly as Drumpf says it is. That's separate from being deplorable or conned. World view varies. Some people view things through different lenses than others. Their reality isn't that they hate immigrants or brown people, their reality is that immigrant caravans will rape their children. That's fucked up, but it's not specifically deplorable in this context.

Seventh, some people are easily conned.

He's actually a terrible con man. "Give me your money because locusts are coming to eat you" is not a brilliant con just because people give him their money. A con isn't brilliant because it works. Duping (some) people is easy. Just ask P.T. Barnum (and yes I know he didn't actually say it, but he probably thought it).

One of the horrifying aspects of the reality of Drumpf is just how poorly he is able to con, how transparent his cons are yet how easily his con worked. It's scary how easy it was to dupe a significant portion of the American populace. But see the factors listed above as some explanation for it.

I've spent a lot of (disorganized) thought on this, because I am appalled that the WH hasn't been burned down in protest yet. I need to understand how things work and drumpf has seriously derailed my equilibrium by making the world work in such a way that I thought was not just unlikely, but impossible. In order to function, I need to understand how drumpf happened, and why he continues to happen. I'm only having middling success.

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:15 amI think the voters he is trying to attract are the ones who won't remember this pledge at all but will remember seeing his face and name on television when he made it. They will be left with the impression that he is principled because the coverage of the pledge since there is little to no coverage of his lack of follow through.

Take solace then regarding recent news about Trump supporters.

Also, I remember her giving this speech, but hearing it again now (again) is downright insane.

@HillaryClinton warning us about @realDonaldTrump’s ties to Russia... ...8 days BEFORE the 2016 election.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:05 pm Also, I remember her giving this speech, but hearing it again now (again) is downright insane.

It's a miracle that HRC doesn't hate America and every single person in it. But as a politician you have to be at least somewhat armored against frustration.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:38 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:33 am I don't know about you fellows, but I'm beginning to suspect that our president hasn't been entirely truthful.

Suppose Mueller proves that Trump won the election with Russian help (because a hotel deal on the side isn't going to cut it), and his findings get past the administration's efforts to suppress them. So what? Is there any scenario that tests whether a sitting president can be indicted? Assuming not, is there any scenario in which 60 senators vote to impeach him? 14 Republicans would have to grow a spine, with no Democratic defectors.

I'm enjoying the drama as much as the next guy, but I wonder if it signifies anything.

67 Senators. 20 Republicans and no Dem defectors (47 Dem + 20 Republicans)

My bad. I was thinking of the 60-vote threshold for ending a filibuster rather than the 2/3 majority needed to convict. I confuse easily when numbers are involved.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:05 pm Also, I remember her giving this speech, but hearing it again now (again) is downright insane.

@HillaryClinton warning us about @realDonaldTrump’s ties to Russia... ...8 days BEFORE the 2016 election.

Earlier than that - she was warning everyone about Trump and Russia during the debates! That was what the whole "I'm not a puppet, not a puppet, you're the puppet."

Oh yeah, it was something that came up a few times, but to hear it all laid out right there in one (relatively) concise argument? It's downright chilling.

It would have been interesting to see the MSM take that argument seriously right before the election, especially as Trump's numbers were already tanking significantly from the Access Hollywood revelation.

But I guess James Comey had something he really, really needed to say.

More best people:

New documents released by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission suggest that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker misled the agency’s investigators as he was stepping into his role last year as Justice Department chief of staff.

After several attempts to reach Whitaker about the Miami company where he was on the advisory board, the FTC investigator emailed his colleagues to relay that he finally reached Whitaker, who was willing to cooperate and asserted that he “never emailed or wrote to consumers” in his consulting role.

That statement to James Evans of the FTC appears to be inaccurate. Whitaker had written a letter in 2015 to a disgruntled customer who planned to report the company, World Patent Marketing, to the Better Business Bureau. In the letter, which was included in the FTC’s disclosure and reported previously by the news media, Whitaker threatened the customer, writing: “I am assuming you understand there could be serious civil and criminal consequences for you if that is in fact what you and your ‘group’ are doing.”

...

At the time, the agency was investigating complaints about World Patent Marketing, which it described as an “invention promotion scheme” that it accused of “bilking millions of dollars from consumers.”

The emails also convey FTC investigators’ shock in October 2017 when — in the latter stages of their investigation — Whitaker was suddenly named chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“You’re not going to believe this,” Evans, who works for the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, wrote on Oct. 24, 2017. “Matt Whitaker is now chief of staff to the Attorney General. Of the United States.”

A 2017 script that was apparently used to woo clients notes the company’s “incredible advisory board” that includes “former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker who was appointed by George Bush.” It later continues, “We even have famous physics professor named Ronald Mallett that is working on time travel and is on television all the time.”

I didn't want to get in on the Whitaker bashing, as I didn't want to feel like I was jumping on anyone drumpf appointed just because drumpf appointed them, but I've read about him some, most of it not hearsay or speculation. He's been involved in some pretty shady shit in his professional non-public service life. The time travel stuff in particular is like pedaling a psychic hotline, except that would be more honest. That details continue to come forward that cast him in a negative light is not surprising to me, but it is disconcerting and worrying.

It's amazing to me Trump could find that many shitty people in the world to surround himself with. But I guess like attracts like.

Someone else put it best and I don't remember who but it made sense. Their idea was that most of the A and B list wanted nothing to do with Trump. And there has always been a marginalized cast of C/D list "actors" orbiting Washington. And many have sensed the unique opportunity and don't give a shit about all the downside. Tada!

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:46 pm It would have been interesting to see the MSM take that argument seriously right before the election, especially as Trump's numbers were already tanking significantly from the Access Hollywood revelation.

But I guess James Comey had something he really, really needed to say.

Nailed it.

Trump says whatever his plebes like in public then behind closed doors continues to do whatever he wants to do as long as its about and for him no matter what he said in public. And his plebes dont even notice or care.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:03 pm I didn't want to get in on the Whitaker bashing, as I didn't want to feel like I was jumping on anyone drumpf appointed just because drumpf appointed them, but I've read about him some, most of it not hearsay or speculation. He's been involved in some pretty shady shit in his professional non-public service life. The time travel stuff in particular is like pedaling a psychic hotline, except that would be more honest. That details continue to come forward that cast him in a negative light is not surprising to me, but it is disconcerting and worrying.

Trump needed an AG who would violate the core principle that the DOJ serves the law rather than the president. Given all that has happened, we can be certain that a loyalty oath was the price of the job.

It's actually reassuring to learn that someone shady enough to pervert the law at the highest level already stinks of corruption. It would be way more disturbing if an apparent straight-shooter were secretly willing to go in on this.

Kyle Griffin wrote:Richard Burr confirms that the Senate Intel Committee "has made referrals to the special prosecutor" for criminal prosecution.

"In a lot of cases, those might be tied to lying to us."

Per Axios, Trump figures who have testified before Congress:

Jeff Sessions (later revised his testimony)
Michael Caputo (campaign official with Kremlin ties)
Jared Kushner
Paul Manafort
JD Gordon (campaign's national security adviser)
Donald Trump Jr.
Roger Stone (House only?)
Boris Epshteyn (Stone acolyte) (House only?)
Michael Cohen
Keith Schiller (Trump's long-time body guard) (House only?)
Steve Bannon (House only?)

This list was published in January, so it's probably incomplete. IIRC, Brad Parscale (Trump campaign digital media guy) has also testified. I also seem to recall that some of the "(House only?)" figures have been called back to the Senate as well.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:47 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:32 pm Comey comes out firing against Devin Nunes' sham investigation in his motion to quash the thanksgiving subpeona:

In Thursday's filing, his lawyers argue that the House Judiciary and Oversight committees "have conducted an investigation in a manner that exceeds a proper legislative purpose insofar as members of the committees have established a practice of selectively leaking witnesses' testimony in order to support a false political narrative, while subjecting witnesses to a variety of abuse."

"Mr. Comey asks this Court's intervention not to avoid giving testimony but to prevent the Joint Committee from using the pretext of a closed interview to peddle a distorted, partisan political narrative about the Clinton and Russian investigations through selective leaks," his lawyers added in court papers.

Seems unlikely that he would win a legal fight here. I'm not an expert on this, but I strongly suspect that the committee has discretion to have their hearing be closed door or open door, and while his leaking suspicions are reasonable, I'd be reluctant as a judge to deny it based on what they may or may not do with the information.

Though, if Comey can delay hearings until January, then the Democratic House would be perfectly happy to cancel the hearing (or have Comey but switch / broaden the topics, and make it open door).

there is a fair amount of case law which supports the position AFAIK (mostly arising out of McCarthy's HUAC abuses in the 50's). Here' the actual filing where it goes into which cases are applicable and why, if you like.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:57 pm

I've spent a lot of (disorganized) thought on this, because I am appalled that the WH hasn't been burned down in protest yet. I need to understand how things work and drumpf has seriously derailed my equilibrium by making the world work in such a way that I thought was not just unlikely, but impossible. In order to function, I need to understand how drumpf happened, and why he continues to happen. I'm only having middling success.

I have this problem myself; I consistently underestimate how stupid the average person is. Con artists don't have this problem

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:56 pm Trump needed an AG who would violate the core principle that the DOJ serves the law rather than the president. Given all that has happened, we can be certain that a loyalty oath was the price of the job.

I could accept that except the DOJ put out a memo endorsing Whitaker's choice for AG, at least as interim AG. What was the deal there? It was my understanding that the memo was signed by a wide variety of DOJ people. It was implied that the memo spoke for the majority of the DOJ.

What's the deal there?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:52 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:56 pm Trump needed an AG who would violate the core principle that the DOJ serves the law rather than the president. Given all that has happened, we can be certain that a loyalty oath was the price of the job.

I could accept that except the DOJ put out a memo endorsing Whitaker's choice for AG, at least as interim AG. What was the deal there? It was my understanding that the memo was signed by a wide variety of DOJ people. It was implied that the memo spoke for the majority of the DOJ.

What's the deal there?

Dunno.

Rosenstein was the most prominent signer, but (to my outside eyes, anyway) he has been playing along with Trump wherever effective opposition was basically impossible. This is one of those cases.

That memo had real sway over me, but I'm realizing now that I really don't know anything about the memo. So that's me being low information. Super awesome to realize.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:16 pm That memo had real sway over me, but I'm realizing now that I really don't know anything about the memo. So that's me being low information. Super awesome to realize.

How can you live with yourself?!

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:57 pm
I'll throw in some more factors.

Drumpf has been branding himself for decades. Branding works, and even I will admit that he's pretty good at it. No politician can compete with him on branding.

Second, the timing was right for an outsider. Who should it be? Branding.

Third, some Americans aren't conned, they like that he's a monster. How many? No idea. Some. And they are deplorable.

Fourth, some Americans are conditioned by their party to be easily conned. Drumpf is not a conservative and does not support conservative values. Doesn't matter, he's GOP, therefore he's my man. Related to this is that they are being conned by someone they trust (GOP in this case). With a trust relationship already in place, a con is much easier to pull off.

Fifth, some Americans are low information voters. Imagine if you only caught the evening news on Fox every few weeks. Of freakin' course you'd think everything is awesome.

Sixth, some Americans have such a warped world view that they see the world exactly as Drumpf says it is. That's separate from being deplorable or conned. World view varies. Some people view things through different lenses than others. Their reality isn't that they hate immigrants or brown people, their reality is that immigrant caravans will rape their children. That's fucked up, but it's not specifically deplorable in this context.

Seventh, some people are easily conned.

He's actually a terrible con man. "Give me your money because locusts are coming to eat you" is not a brilliant con just because people give him their money. A con isn't brilliant because it works. Duping (some) people is easy. Just ask P.T. Barnum (and yes I know he didn't actually say it, but he probably thought it).

One of the horrifying aspects of the reality of Drumpf is just how poorly he is able to con, how transparent his cons are yet how easily his con worked. It's scary how easy it was to dupe a significant portion of the American populace. But see the factors listed above as some explanation for it.

I've spent a lot of (disorganized) thought on this, because I am appalled that the WH hasn't been burned down in protest yet. I need to understand how things work and drumpf has seriously derailed my equilibrium by making the world work in such a way that I thought was not just unlikely, but impossible. In order to function, I need to understand how drumpf happened, and why he continues to happen. I'm only having middling success.

I don’t disagree with anything you say, except I still think there’s an argument that Trump is a brilliant con man. I’m not saying he’s tricking everyone. I’m saying his very brand is a con and always has been. He is a business failure, yet he keeps making money. He screws over everyone he works with, yet people still work with him.

He has created Trump the myth and enough people buy into it and keep buying into that he is a successful con artist.

Donald Trump, the single most unqualified major candidate to ever run for president, won the presidency. If that’s not a successful con by a successful con artist, I’m not sure what is.

That some people easily see through it doesn’t diminish the “accomplishment”.