All Things Trump

[Forty Two]

Federal judge rebukes Mueller team for questionable tactics: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/38 ... le-tactics

An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months — namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of President Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against Trump.

This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing — he will compose! Here is what he said about that: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.”
I have been using this “compose” metaphor for decades, and I am gratified that a judge borrowed it to express an important civil liberties concern. Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. I have seen it used by prosecutors who threaten wives, parents, siblings and, in one case, the innocent son of a potential witness who was about to graduate law school. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly, as Judge Ellis has done.

Defenders of Mueller’s tactic argue that the threatened witnesses and their relatives are generally guilty of some crime, or else they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the prosecutor’s threats. This may be true, but the crimes they are threatened to be charged with are often highly technical, elastic charges that are brought only as leverage. They are dropped as soon as the witness cooperates. This was precisely the point Judge Ellis was making with regard to Manafort.

A similar point could be made with regard to President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and perhaps to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Indeed, Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution.

Civil libertarians have long criticized this tactic, since the time it was used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his minions to pressure witnesses to testify against suspected communists in the 1950s. In recent decades it has been deployed against mobsters, terrorists and corporate predators. But Judges Ellis has accused Mueller of using this questionable approach to develop a political case against the duly elected president of the United States.

For those who argue that everything is fair, if the goal is to prevent a president from being above the law, Judge Ellis provided a compelling response: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He was referring to the manner by which the special counsel was using his power to “tighten the screws” on Manafort by indicting him for an alleged crime that the judge believes has nothing to do “with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate.”

Civil libertarians should be applauding Judge Ellis for seeking to cabin the “unfettered power” of the special counsel to do “anything he wants.” But no, because his ruling may help Trump, and because Trump has applauded it, the civil liberties and criminal defense communities have not been heard from.

[Brian Peacock]

What does the Iran nuclear deal do, again?

Banish ignorance with Google!

[Scot Dutchy]

I would like to know why it is a bad deal for the USA? He gives no explanation (well that's nothing new of course).

[Forty Two]

Can anyone conceivably contend that a prosecutor’s desire to maintain secrecy until the prosecutor is good and ready to reveal details of his investigation is more important to our society than the damage caused by potentially unfounded suspicion that the president is a criminal?

It has become ludicrous. The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... -revealed/

That is not acceptable. In every other independent-prosecutor investigation in modern history — Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater/Lewinsky — the president and the public have known exactly what was alleged. The prosecutor was able to investigate with all the secrecy the law allows, but under circumstances in which we all understood what was being investigated and why the president was suspected of wrongdoing.

After two years, we are entitled to nothing less. The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one. If he can’t, Mueller’s criminal investigation should be terminated; if he can, Mueller should be compelled to explain (unless Rosenstein’s disclosure makes it clear) why he needs to interview President Trump in order to complete his work.

If Rosenstein and Mueller are reluctant to do that, it can only be because they’ve decided that not only their investigation but also their desire for secrecy take precedence over every other consideration, including the president’s capacity to govern domestically and conduct foreign policy in a dangerous world. But secrecy is not the nation’s top priority. It’s long past time to lay the cards on the table.

[Forty Two]

I would like to know why it is a bad deal for the USA? He gives no explanation (well that's nothing new of course).

Even Chuck Schumer knows - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ys-under-/

More than 200 generals and admirals opposed it: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... erals-adm/

Here is a list of articles - https://www.washingtontimes.com/special ... nd-israel/

[Svartalf]

it puts Iran back into the world oil trade community on condition that they'll keep their nuclear research strictly civilian. If the deal falls through because frump gets out, then, they'll get military recipes from Pakstan or PRNK... and given how good their missiles are, they'll be in a situation to glass Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

[pErvinalia]

Federal judge rebukes Mueller team for questionable tactics: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/38 ... le-tactics

An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months — namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of President Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against Trump.

This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing — he will compose! Here is what he said about that: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.”
I have been using this “compose” metaphor for decades, and I am gratified that a judge borrowed it to express an important civil liberties concern. Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. I have seen it used by prosecutors who threaten wives, parents, siblings and, in one case, the innocent son of a potential witness who was about to graduate law school. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly, as Judge Ellis has done.

Defenders of Mueller’s tactic argue that the threatened witnesses and their relatives are generally guilty of some crime, or else they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the prosecutor’s threats. This may be true, but the crimes they are threatened to be charged with are often highly technical, elastic charges that are brought only as leverage. They are dropped as soon as the witness cooperates. This was precisely the point Judge Ellis was making with regard to Manafort.

A similar point could be made with regard to President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and perhaps to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Indeed, Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution.

Civil libertarians have long criticized this tactic, since the time it was used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his minions to pressure witnesses to testify against suspected communists in the 1950s. In recent decades it has been deployed against mobsters, terrorists and corporate predators. But Judges Ellis has accused Mueller of using this questionable approach to develop a political case against the duly elected president of the United States.

For those who argue that everything is fair, if the goal is to prevent a president from being above the law, Judge Ellis provided a compelling response: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He was referring to the manner by which the special counsel was using his power to “tighten the screws” on Manafort by indicting him for an alleged crime that the judge believes has nothing to do “with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate.”

Civil libertarians should be applauding Judge Ellis for seeking to cabin the “unfettered power” of the special counsel to do “anything he wants.” But no, because his ruling may help Trump, and because Trump has applauded it, the civil liberties and criminal defense communities have not been heard from.

That judge is a Republican shill. #FAKEJUDGE

[Tero]

Crooked businessman Trump
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... mpire.html

[Animavore]

The idea that we must “understand” those folks carries with it an implicit suggestion that in so doing, we might find some ground for compromise. It would be a great idea in normal times. But again, these times are not normal.

No compromise is possible here for a simple reason Trump followers seem to understand better than the rest of us: You can’t compromise with demography, can’t order numbers to stop being what they are and saying what they say about the coming tide of change. But what you can do is seize the levers of power and change the rules of the game in hopes of blunting the force of that tide. That — again, look at the studies — is what Trump supporters elected him to do.

So while, it is admirable to think “understanding” can fix this country, it is also naive. Progressives should ask themselves: When’s the last time you heard any Trump supporters talking about the need to understand you? You haven’t — and that ought to tell you something.

Here’s the thing: the rest of us have the moral high ground here. We see the same demographic writing on the wall that Trump followers see, but where it makes them angry and fearful, it leaves us energized. Many of us are excited to see the nation that will arise from this cauldron of change.

That’s because the idea of change doesn’t threaten us. It will challenge us, yes, but we’re ready for that. We know that this a big country, big enough for many different kinds of people, many different ways of life. We know what it means to live and let live. And we know that welcoming the stranger, caring for the stranger, is simply what you do as a human being.

I submit that those are core American virtues. And that now would be an excellent time for progressives to exhibit a little courage in their defense. Trump followers see a nation in demographic peril, so they seek a nation where those who frighten them can be regulated into irrelevance. There’s no big mystery about that. There never has been. So no, they don’t really need to be understood.

What they need to be, is defeated.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn- ... rylink=cpy

[Animavore]

The consequences of Kanye West’s unlettered view of America and its history are, if anything, more direct. For his fans, it is the quality of his art that ultimately matters, not his pronouncements. If his upcoming album is great, the dalliance with Trump will be prologue. If it’s bad, then it will be foreshadowing. In any case what will remain is this—West lending  his imprimatur, as well as his Twitter platform of some 28 million people, to the racist rhetoric of the conservative movement. West’s thoughts are not original—the apocryphal Harriet Tubman quote and the notion that slavery was a “choice” echoes the ancient trope that slavery wasn’t that bad; the myth that blacks do not protest crime in their community is pure Giulianism; and West’s desire to “go to Charlottesville and talk to people on both sides” is an extension of Trump’s response to the catastrophe. These are not stray thoughts. They are the propaganda that justifies voter suppression, and feeds police brutality, and minimizes the murder of Heather Heyer. And Kanye West is now a mouthpiece for it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... source=twb

[Scot Dutchy]

What is wrong with Melania? Her sparrow's brain is unable to think for itself.

New plagiarism row for Melania Trump as pamphlet bears uncanny resemblance to 2014 version

Booklet on children’s online safety for first lady’s ‘Be Best’ campaign seems almost identical to one first published by FTC four years ago

A booklet published by Melania Trump’s new campaign for children’s online safety bears an uncanny resemblance to a document released under Barack Obama’s administration.

Donald Trump’s wife gave an opening night address at the Republican National Convention in 2016 that was partly plagiarised from a speech by then first lady Michelle Obama.

[Forty Two]

Errr. when it was first publised it specifically cited to the FTC - it was a pamphlet "by Melania Trump and the FTC." That's not plagiarism, when you say flat out that it was written by the FTC, which is what it said.

A big nothing.

[Scot Dutchy]

The first was published under Obama and had nothing to do with her.

Melania Trump faces new plagiarism row over cyber safety booklet

US First Lady Melania Trump has been caught up in another plagiarism row, following the launch of her new online safety for children campaign on Monday.

A booklet put out by Mrs Trump bore a striking resemblance to one published under the Obama administration.

The text and graphics of the "Be Best" booklet were nearly identical to those in the previous edition.

In 2016 Mrs Trump was accused of plagiarising parts of a speech from a 2008 address by Michelle Obama.

After commentators picked up on very close similarities between the two speeches, Meredith McIver, a Trump administration staff member who wrote Mrs Trump's speech, admitted borrowing from Mrs Obama.

[Forty Two]

Yes, but in her Be Best brochure info, she credits the FTC. It doesn't matter that it has "nothing to do with her." The methods by which kids should protect themselves on the internet are not things that the First Lady is going to invent on her own. People have already published best practices and guidance. That's what the FTC is partly for. What do you expect? That she has some all-knew plan for keeping kids from accessing the wrong sites on the internet?

[Scot Dutchy]

So it is plagiarising. Stop making excuses. The sparrow brain does not have an original thought.