Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[Dr. Blutarsky]

It may increase the possibility, but it isn't " proof". 

 

[pilferk]

It may increase the possibility, but it isn't " proof". 

 

Yes.

It's evidence.

Not proof.

But the evidence is certainly mounting.

[pilferk]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

[AxlsMainMan]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

Is he still pro-life? Remember, that's all that matters

[tim_m]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

It was that bad?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

It was that bad?

I watched it, he was all over the place. The hosts were having a hard time reigning him in and keeping him within the questions they were asking. Was like Donald drank 10 cups of coffee.

Could this be the beginning of the end? 

[pilferk]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

It was that bad?

Read the Good Senators descriptions above. Consider his general political leanings in this thread.

Consider how bad it must have been for him to make those remarks.

It was bad.

He sounded positively unhinged. Rambling, angry, SCREAMING into the phone at times.  CERTAINLY putting himself into legal jeopardy (and not realizing it).  If you listen to that segment, you 100% know why his lawyers do NOT want him sitting down to interview with Mueller.

It was CERTAINLY more disturbing than anything Howard Dean ever did on the campaign trail (which almost instantly disqualified him from the Dem nom) by a factor of 1k.

Think about this: You have the president of the United States on the phone.  You are his staunchest supporters, biggest mouthpieces, and biggest influence (because he watches you CONSTANTLY).  And it's SOOOO BAD (like damaging to him legally, politically, and personally) that you start telling him you're out of time and try to shoo him off the phone so he'll stop.

THATS how bad it was.  Not "Old man on the lawn yelling at the whippersnappers" bad. "Old man on the lawn, naked, covered in shit, yelling at the sun because it's too bright and hurting his eyes" bad.

As you all know, I am no Trump fan.  I WAS CRINGING AND HOPING HE'D STOP TALKING. THAT KIND OF BAD.

Tim....you should find it and watch it.  It's like watching a train wreck.  You are praying for the victims...you know it's kind of morbid that you're watching...but you CAN NOT TURN AWAY.

Will it actually matter for his presidency? Probably not. Because...lets face it...he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose a single vote.  His voters will (mostly....though seeing the Senator, above, gives me some hope) probably poo poo it and that will be the end of it, politically.

But the courts aren't ignoring it. Both court proceedings we KNOW OF have been made aware, and the Cohen case, yesterday, factored it in during the hearings. 

Which, by the by, did not go Trumps way.  They appointed a special master, as I suspected, to act as mediator between the two sides. But they will not "pre-review" the material.  The prosecution gets it's look, and will make the first determination over what's priviledged.  The Special Master will rule on the objections from the defense (which will be plentiful)....but that won't stop the prosecution from getting to look at ALL of it.  It will only prevent what they might be able to USE at trial.

[pilferk]

I watched it, he was all over the place. The hosts were having a hard time reigning him in and keeping him within the questions they were asking. Was like Donald drank 10 cups of coffee.

Could this be the beginning of the end? 

I'd suggest it was less like he'd drank 10 cups of coffee and more like his meds hadn't kicked in yet (or those 10 cups of coffee were a little (more than a little) "Irish").

He literally spoke (again....witness Lester Holt interview) against his legal, personal, and political interests.  And contradicted at least a dozen previous statements with this interview.  Not "marginally contradicted", either.  Like....one of these things is a lie and one is true...because they can't possibly both be true.

That wasn't "hyper Don".  That was "Positively Unhinged Don".

[tim_m]

Was this where he implied Cohen took care of a crazy case with a adult film star or was that completely separate? I saw it on cbs this morning.

[tim_m]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

It was that bad?

Read the Good Senators descriptions above. Consider his general political leanings in this thread.

Consider how bad it must have been for him to make those remarks.

It was bad.

He sounded positively unhinged. Rambling, angry, SCREAMING into the phone at times.  CERTAINLY putting himself into legal jeopardy (and not realizing it).  If you listen to that segment, you 100% know why his lawyers do NOT want him sitting down to interview with Mueller.

It was CERTAINLY more disturbing than anything Howard Dean ever did on the campaign trail (which almost instantly disqualified him from the Dem nom) by a factor of 1k.

Think about this: You have the president of the United States on the phone.  You are his staunchest supporters, biggest mouthpieces, and biggest influence (because he watches you CONSTANTLY).  And it's SOOOO BAD (like damaging to him legally, politically, and personally) that you start telling him you're out of time and try to shoo him off the phone so he'll stop.

THATS how bad it was.  Not "Old man on the lawn yelling at the whippersnappers" bad. "Old man on the lawn, naked, covered in shit, yelling at the sun because it's too bright and hurting his eyes" bad.

As you all know, I am no Trump fan.  I WAS CRINGING AND HOPING HE'D STOP TALKING. THAT KIND OF BAD.

Tim....you should find it and watch it.  It's like watching a train wreck.  You are praying for the victims...you know it's kind of morbid that you're watching...but you CAN NOT TURN AWAY.

Will it actually matter for his presidency? Probably not. Because...lets face it...he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose a single vote.  His voters will (mostly....though seeing the Senator, above, gives me some hope) probably poo poo it and that will be the end of it, politically.

But the courts aren't ignoring it. Both court proceedings we KNOW OF have been made aware, and the Cohen case, yesterday, factored it in during the hearings. 

Which, by the by, did not go Trumps way.  They appointed a special master, as I suspected, to act as mediator between the two sides. But they will not "pre-review" the material.  The prosecution gets it's look, and will make the first determination over what's priviledged.  The Special Master will rule on the objections from the defense (which will be plentiful)....but that won't stop the prosecution from getting to look at ALL of it.  It will only prevent what they might be able to USE at trial.

I try and avoid faux news like the plague. You know it's bad when someone who supports you is trying to shoo you off the phone.

[tim_m]

What exactly did he say that you think could hurt him legally as it pertains to Cohen?

[pilferk]

What exactly did he say that you think could hurt him legally as it pertains to Cohen?

1) He has previously denied that Cohen "represented him" when it comes to Stormy Daniels.  He has repeatedly said Cohen did this on his own (which makes compensation and campaign finance laws pretty much off the table). In the interview, he said the exact opposite.  Saying this expands his legal jeopardy.

2) He said that Cohen only does a very small percentage of Trumps legal work.  This is FAR different than saying "Cohen is my personal attorney and has been for decades".  That is going to hurt him in court, where his attorneys are trying to claim broad attorney/client priviledge over the seized material from Cohens office/home/hotel room.

3) He said that Cohen has other businesses, and is a businessman....and that the FBI is looking into those business dealings (which absolutely, positively, have NOTHING to do with Trump...he says).  That directly contradicts the assertion he is acting mostly as an attorney, for Trump, and it supports the Prosecutions claim that Cohen acts more as a fixer, and as a businessman/associate, than he does as a legal representative, professionally.  This, again, undermines broad claims of priviledge both in the Daniels case AND in the criminal case against Cohen.

There was some other justice department stuff thats going to get him into hot water, potentially, too.  He implies he is getting frustrated and he might decide to "meddle" with the "my justice department".  What thats going to do is get the judicial branch hyper-vigilant about conflicts of interest and recusals as they pertain to Trump.  THAT is especially bad news for him in a number of legal areas.  For example: Having Rudy on his legal team, when he was also involved in the campaign process...given these comments...is going to start to raise questions about whether Rudy can do that without violating bar ethics rules. 

He also admitted (contradicting earlier assertions that he never stayed overnight in Moscow) that he stayed overnight in a Moscow hotel before the Miss Universe pageant. Now, that doesn't hurt him LEGALLY (yet) but it sure does him no favors politically and personally.  And it's more evidence that the dossier might actually hold some truth to it.  We talked about this earlier, based on the flight records. Well, in that conversation, he's now admitted it (and, consequently, that he had lied previously).

[pilferk]

Was this where he implied Cohen took care of a crazy case with a adult film star or was that completely separate? I saw it on cbs this morning.

That was one very small part of a 30+ minute tirade.

[pilferk]

I try and avoid faux news like the plague. You know it's bad when someone who supports you is trying to shoo you off the phone.

I watch very, very little cable news.  Just not my "thing".  Occasionally I'll park for an interview that Maddow or Anderson Cooper is doing.   I might catch 20 minutes of Chris Hayes if he's doing an cool esoteric economy segment (which is like once a month, maybe). If there's breaking news (like Parkland or Vegas) I'll park on CNN just to follow the minute to minute.  But the "editorial" stuff that MSNBC and Fox News do are just not my thing. But.....

I got a heads up from someone about 5 minutes after Trump went "live" and I flipped over to watch.  When it was done, I found the full interview and watched the first 5 minutes.  It wasn't any better.  He went from 0 to 60 in about a minute.

[tim_m]

I try and avoid faux news like the plague. You know it's bad when someone who supports you is trying to shoo you off the phone.

I watch very, very little cable news.  Just not my "thing".  Occasionally I'll park for an interview that Maddow or Anderson Cooper is doing.   I might catch 20 minutes of Chris Hayes if he's doing an cool esoteric economy segment (which is like once a month, maybe). If there's breaking news (like Parkland or Vegas) I'll park on CNN just to follow the minute to minute.  But the "editorial" stuff that MSNBC and Fox News do are just not my thing. But.....

I got a heads up from someone about 5 minutes after Trump went "live" and I flipped over to watch.  When it was done, I found the full interview and watched the first 5 minutes.  It wasn't any better.  He went from 0 to 60 in about a minute.

That's basically what i do too. If i hear something is going on via twitter or facebook i'll turn on CNN or MSNBC to see what they're saying. Otherwise, i don't watch cable news aside from election nights.

[tim_m]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

It was that bad?

Read the Good Senators descriptions above. Consider his general political leanings in this thread.

Consider how bad it must have been for him to make those remarks.

It was bad.

He sounded positively unhinged. Rambling, angry, SCREAMING into the phone at times.  CERTAINLY putting himself into legal jeopardy (and not realizing it).  If you listen to that segment, you 100% know why his lawyers do NOT want him sitting down to interview with Mueller.

It was CERTAINLY more disturbing than anything Howard Dean ever did on the campaign trail (which almost instantly disqualified him from the Dem nom) by a factor of 1k.

Think about this: You have the president of the United States on the phone.  You are his staunchest supporters, biggest mouthpieces, and biggest influence (because he watches you CONSTANTLY).  And it's SOOOO BAD (like damaging to him legally, politically, and personally) that you start telling him you're out of time and try to shoo him off the phone so he'll stop.

THATS how bad it was.  Not "Old man on the lawn yelling at the whippersnappers" bad. "Old man on the lawn, naked, covered in shit, yelling at the sun because it's too bright and hurting his eyes" bad.

As you all know, I am no Trump fan.  I WAS CRINGING AND HOPING HE'D STOP TALKING. THAT KIND OF BAD.

Tim....you should find it and watch it.  It's like watching a train wreck.  You are praying for the victims...you know it's kind of morbid that you're watching...but you CAN NOT TURN AWAY.

Will it actually matter for his presidency? Probably not. Because...lets face it...he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose a single vote.  His voters will (mostly....though seeing the Senator, above, gives me some hope) probably poo poo it and that will be the end of it, politically.

But the courts aren't ignoring it. Both court proceedings we KNOW OF have been made aware, and the Cohen case, yesterday, factored it in during the hearings. 

Which, by the by, did not go Trumps way.  They appointed a special master, as I suspected, to act as mediator between the two sides. But they will not "pre-review" the material.  The prosecution gets it's look, and will make the first determination over what's priviledged.  The Special Master will rule on the objections from the defense (which will be plentiful)....but that won't stop the prosecution from getting to look at ALL of it.  It will only prevent what they might be able to USE at trial.

Ok, so does this mean whatever the prosecution deems not attorney client privilege they can use and the defense can't say no? Or does the judge get to review what the prosecution wants to use against Trump and Cohen and decide if privilege applies or not? I am by no means any kind of law expert.

[tim_m]

What exactly did he say that you think could hurt him legally as it pertains to Cohen?

1) He has previously denied that Cohen "represented him" when it comes to Stormy Daniels.  He has repeatedly said Cohen did this on his own (which makes compensation and campaign finance laws pretty much off the table). In the interview, he said the exact opposite.  Saying this expands his legal jeopardy.

2) He said that Cohen only does a very small percentage of Trumps legal work.  This is FAR different than saying "Cohen is my personal attorney and has been for decades".  That is going to hurt him in court, where his attorneys are trying to claim broad attorney/client priviledge over the seized material from Cohens office/home/hotel room.

3) He said that Cohen has other businesses, and is a businessman....and that the FBI is looking into those business dealings (which absolutely, positively, have NOTHING to do with Trump...he says).  That directly contradicts the assertion he is acting mostly as an attorney, for Trump, and it supports the Prosecutions claim that Cohen acts more as a fixer, and as a businessman/associate, than he does as a legal representative, professionally.  This, again, undermines broad claims of priviledge both in the Daniels case AND in the criminal case against Cohen.

There was some other justice department stuff thats going to get him into hot water, potentially, too.  He implies he is getting frustrated and he might decide to "meddle" with the "my justice department".  What thats going to do is get the judicial branch hyper-vigilant about conflicts of interest and recusals as they pertain to Trump.  THAT is especially bad news for him in a number of legal areas.  For example: Having Rudy on his legal team, when he was also involved in the campaign process...given these comments...is going to start to raise questions about whether Rudy can do that without violating bar ethics rules. 

He also admitted (contradicting earlier assertions that he never stayed overnight in Moscow) that he stayed overnight in a Moscow hotel before the Miss Universe pageant. Now, that doesn't hurt him LEGALLY (yet) but it sure does him no favors politically and personally.  And it's more evidence that the dossier might actually hold some truth to it.  We talked about this earlier, based on the flight records. Well, in that conversation, he's now admitted it (and, consequently, that he had lied previously).

So he's basically saying there is no attorney client privilege now and admitted he stayed over in Russia proving that at least there is some truth to the dossier? I would love to get this guy in front of Mueller. He'd probably sing like a canary and not realize it.

[pilferk]

Yup, he sounded like a stable genius with an even, presidential, temperment today on Fox and Friends.

 

It was that bad?

Read the Good Senators descriptions above. Consider his general political leanings in this thread.

Consider how bad it must have been for him to make those remarks.

It was bad.

He sounded positively unhinged. Rambling, angry, SCREAMING into the phone at times.  CERTAINLY putting himself into legal jeopardy (and not realizing it).  If you listen to that segment, you 100% know why his lawyers do NOT want him sitting down to interview with Mueller.

It was CERTAINLY more disturbing than anything Howard Dean ever did on the campaign trail (which almost instantly disqualified him from the Dem nom) by a factor of 1k.

Think about this: You have the president of the United States on the phone.  You are his staunchest supporters, biggest mouthpieces, and biggest influence (because he watches you CONSTANTLY).  And it's SOOOO BAD (like damaging to him legally, politically, and personally) that you start telling him you're out of time and try to shoo him off the phone so he'll stop.

THATS how bad it was.  Not "Old man on the lawn yelling at the whippersnappers" bad. "Old man on the lawn, naked, covered in shit, yelling at the sun because it's too bright and hurting his eyes" bad.

As you all know, I am no Trump fan.  I WAS CRINGING AND HOPING HE'D STOP TALKING. THAT KIND OF BAD.

Tim....you should find it and watch it.  It's like watching a train wreck.  You are praying for the victims...you know it's kind of morbid that you're watching...but you CAN NOT TURN AWAY.

Will it actually matter for his presidency? Probably not. Because...lets face it...he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose a single vote.  His voters will (mostly....though seeing the Senator, above, gives me some hope) probably poo poo it and that will be the end of it, politically.

But the courts aren't ignoring it. Both court proceedings we KNOW OF have been made aware, and the Cohen case, yesterday, factored it in during the hearings. 

Which, by the by, did not go Trumps way.  They appointed a special master, as I suspected, to act as mediator between the two sides. But they will not "pre-review" the material.  The prosecution gets it's look, and will make the first determination over what's priviledged.  The Special Master will rule on the objections from the defense (which will be plentiful)....but that won't stop the prosecution from getting to look at ALL of it.  It will only prevent what they might be able to USE at trial.

Ok, so does this mean whatever the prosecution deems not attorney client privilege they can use and the defense can't say no? Or does the judge get to review what the prosecution wants to use against Trump and Cohen and decide if privilege applies or not? I am by no means any kind of law expert.

All of the above?

The prosecution will review all the material and decide what they think is covered by privilege and what isn't.  The defense will do likewise as part of discovery.  The'll both submit their lists to the Special Master who will then review both sides findings, and will rule where there are disagreements.  The master could go back to the judge if there is a piece of evidence that they feel could go either way, for a more deterministic legal ruling.

BUT, none of this precludes the prosecution from actually LOOKING at the material.  That's what the defense really wanted to stop.  They failed.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Apparently Mueller's questions to Trump leaked to the media.  My question is who is doing the leaking, is it someone on Mueller's team or is it coming from someone in the White House? Either way, this shouldn't be happening.

And unrelated,  Michelle Wolf's routine ruined the White House Correspondents dinner. What she said about Sarah Huckabee Sanders and to a lesser extent Kellyanne Conway was uncalled for. 

[AxlsMainMan]

And unrelated,  Michelle Wolf's routine ruined the White House Correspondents dinner. What she said about Sarah Huckabee Sanders and to a lesser extent Kellyanne Conway was uncalled for. 

Seriously? Aren't you and Sandman always calling people "snowflakes" and here you are with your nose in a twist over non-offensive, non-racist, non-sexist jokes?

Take a moment to think about how many despicable things your hero Trump has said about immigrants, women, disabled people, etc. before you come on here and make yourself look like a damn fool by uttering such laughably hypocritical nonsense