(03-26-2018 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You must not have read my entire response.
I did touch on the fact that this story is juicy and people love gossip. I mean, just look at the fact that the National Enquirer is still in business.
What I then said was that, with Stormy Daniels, the real story revolves around the NDA and not her being a porn star. Notice the qualifier I tagged on? I can't help what people like to hear, and even provided my frustration about the fascination of the dirty details.
I like how you try to minimize the potential campaign finance violation due to the size of the violation. Committing a crime is still committing a crime. And that story is NO fabrication. Cohen has admitted that he paid the $130,000 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
And based on the type of language Cohen has used when making threats in the past, against people who may speak out against Trump, I wouldn't doubt the Daniels story.
I think you are stretching it here.
Quote:Especially since it was from 2011 and Trump was mulling a run for president in 2012. Here is Cohen apologizing for a threat he made to a reporter in 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2306290
Here is what he said:
Quote:“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up,” an enraged Cohen told The Daily Beast
followed by
Quote:“Tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting,” he menaced.
You *do* realize he is an attorney, right? To be blunt, I have been in rooms where scores of attorneys have said this and it's equivalent.
You have an absolute right to read physical threat into it, but all I see here is blustering legal action.
But to stretch that into nothing but an unambiguous physical threat is really kind of a serious stretch here, Lad. So now if someone makes a threat of doing something in the legal system one should take that as proof positive of a physical threat? Give me a fing break, Lad. Sorry this one is so paper thin it is laughable. I don't know where you got this 'source' that this is proof of past physical threats, but given the actual language and the fact that Cohen is known an 'in the fing streets brawler' of an attorney, it truly is a crappy one. Perhaps you need to forward my last sentence on describing Cohen as a 'brawler' as further proof of physical violence, eh?
(03-26-2018 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 07:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2018 07:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2018 11:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Why are Trump’s affairs important? That is what the all Trump, all the time networks are covering now.
So, nobody wanted to tackle this?
In the case of Stormy Daniels, no doubt ratings plays a role - CNN's top guy doing the interview on CBS.
And let's face it, POTUS and the Porn Star is a new level of salaciousness.
So it IS about her being a PORN star? Here lad was about to convince me that what these women did or were had nothing to do with it, it was all about the lawyer.
Quote:Also there is the possible campaign law violation.
A technicality at best. $130K out of millions? At worst, a fabrication so they can continue talking about the PORN STAR.
Quote:And the accusation of intimidation and threats of violence.
Those would be concerning if they really happened.
Quote:And, yes, simple schadenfreude after years of being lectured by the right on our alleged moral inferiority and the right's inherent moral superiority.
A honest response, and the first such I have heard from the left. Now you know how we on the right feel after years of being referred to as racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and just plain deplorable.
But nobody, I repeat nobody, voted for Trump because of his moral rectitude, unless it was in comparison to hers. People voted for him for the same reason they voted for Obama - they were hoping for change. Kind of deceptive to make it about morals after the fact.
Quote:Having said all that, it's the Bolton nomination that is the scariest, most important development of the past week.
We can agree on this. Yet the big story on your own MSNBC and CNN is PORN STAR, PORN STAR PORN STAR. Maybe if she was a RUSSIAN porn star... but the media has not yet found out that she once performed in front of an audience that included people with relatives in Russia.
I have mixed feelings on Bolton. My first and main feeling is - I don't like the guy. I don't like him personally.
My second and more minor thought is - well, let's try standing up to these bullies. Twenty years of bending over backwards and kissing our own ass hasn't stopped them - if anything it seems to have conditioned them to expect more of the same, which your side advocates. Bolton is the furthest there is from more of the same.
You must not have read my entire response.
I did touch on the fact that this story is juicy and people love gossip. I mean, just look at the fact that the National Enquirer is still in business.
What I then said was that, with Stormy Daniels, the real story revolves around the NDA and not her being a porn star. Notice the qualifier I tagged on? I can't help what people like to hear, and even provided my frustration about the fascination of the dirty details.
I like how you try to minimize the potential campaign finance violation due to the size of the violation. Committing a crime is still committing a crime. And that story is NO fabrication. Cohen has admitted that he paid the $130,000 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
Quote:"Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
And based on the type of language Cohen has used when making threats in the past, against people who may speak out against Trump, I wouldn't doubt the Daniels story. Especially since it was from 2011 and Trump was mulling a run for president in 2012. Here is Cohen apologizing for a threat he made to a reporter in 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2306290
Have you actually read into the Daniels NDA story at all?
Just what I hear on CNN. 7/24, porn star, porn star, porn star. Turn CNN on now and you will hear the words porn star in a minute. That's not the unwashed public wanting the details - that is your tame news outlet pushing it.
True, a violation of law is a violation of law, no matter the size. I have seen men sentenced to prison for stealing $1.05. But generally speaking, a big transgression is more notable than a small one. That's why shoplifters rarely get life sentences and a small amount of weed is not the same as a truckload.
But penny ante violations are often handled by just returning the money. Every time a candidate gets campaign money from an embarrassing source, the immediate response upon discovery is to return the money. "We did not realize that "Young Nazis for an Aryan America" was a racist organization when they donated that $50K six months ago. It was a mistake by somebody who is not the candidate. We are returning the money immediately."
If Trump and/or his lawyer paid Daniels out of the wrong account, it is not a BFD (using Biden-speak here). And if they did NOT pay her out of the wrong account, it is nothing at all, but a convenient hook to keep airing stories about the PORN star.
I have been threatened by lawyers in the past. Usually the the threat is in the form of bankrupting me or sending me to prison. Lawyers do this stuff. (Sorry, Tanq) Now if you have a letter from him threatening to break her legs, I will defer to that.
I wonder what "threats" Bill's accusers may have received, and from whom? Probably nothing more than chocolates and flowers with kisses and hugs.
(03-26-2018 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You must not have read my entire response.
I did touch on the fact that this story is juicy and people love gossip. I mean, just look at the fact that the National Enquirer is still in business.
What I then said was that, with Stormy Daniels, the real story revolves around the NDA and not her being a porn star. Notice the qualifier I tagged on? I can't help what people like to hear, and even provided my frustration about the fascination of the dirty details.
I like how you try to minimize the potential campaign finance violation due to the size of the violation. Committing a crime is still committing a crime. And that story is NO fabrication. Cohen has admitted that he paid the $130,000 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
And based on the type of language Cohen has used when making threats in the past, against people who may speak out against Trump, I wouldn't doubt the Daniels story.
I think you are stretching it here.
Quote:Especially since it was from 2011 and Trump was mulling a run for president in 2012. Here is Cohen apologizing for a threat he made to a reporter in 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2306290
Here is what he said:
Quote:“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up,” an enraged Cohen told The Daily Beast
followed by
Quote:“Tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting,” he menaced.
You *do* realize he is an attorney, right? To be blunt, I have been in rooms where scores of attorneys have said this and it's equivalent.
You have an absolute right to read physical threat into it, but all I see here is blustering legal action.
But to stretch that into nothing but an unambiguous physical threat is really kind of a serious stretch here, Lad.
That is not the stretch I am making. The stretch I am making is that I would not put it past someone who would use that kind of language and tone to try and get a reporter from reporting on a story to hire someone to threaten another person.
I did not read explicit physical threat in that, but I read someone who is willing to play dirty and threaten someone using various methods. This is also something Cohen has said:
Quote: When asked why he made the payment, Cohen told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."
Put these pieces together, and I don't find the Daniel's claim of someone threatening her in 2011 to be unbelievable. Do you think it's unbelievable?
(03-26-2018 09:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you use 'hush money' as opposed to 'settlement to execute a legally binding NDA'..... much sexier, eh? Lad, by consistently using the term 'hush money' you clearly indicate that you do not believe it was a settlement of a valid claim. Or do you just like lobbing loaded terms about? (kind of like I just did with that last sentence.... 
)
As to what Cohen explained, he has said a lot (and nothing) at the same time. Would you point me to the specific thing he said that you would like me to look at, instead of me guessing?
See the CNN article.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
Quote: "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford," Michael Cohen said in a statement. "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
Why would Cohen need to offer himself up as the person who paid for the agreement?
(03-26-2018 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You must not have read my entire response.
I did touch on the fact that this story is juicy and people love gossip. I mean, just look at the fact that the National Enquirer is still in business.
What I then said was that, with Stormy Daniels, the real story revolves around the NDA and not her being a porn star. Notice the qualifier I tagged on? I can't help what people like to hear, and even provided my frustration about the fascination of the dirty details.
I like how you try to minimize the potential campaign finance violation due to the size of the violation. Committing a crime is still committing a crime. And that story is NO fabrication. Cohen has admitted that he paid the $130,000 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
And based on the type of language Cohen has used when making threats in the past, against people who may speak out against Trump, I wouldn't doubt the Daniels story.
I think you are stretching it here.
Quote:Especially since it was from 2011 and Trump was mulling a run for president in 2012. Here is Cohen apologizing for a threat he made to a reporter in 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2306290
Here is what he said:
Quote:“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up,” an enraged Cohen told The Daily Beast
followed by
Quote:“Tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting,” he menaced.
You *do* realize he is an attorney, right? To be blunt, I have been in rooms where scores of attorneys have said this and it's equivalent.
You have an absolute right to read physical threat into it, but all I see here is blustering legal action.
But to stretch that into nothing but an unambiguous physical threat is really kind of a serious stretch here, Lad.
That is not the stretch I am making. The stretch I am making is that I would not put it past someone who would use that kind of language and tone to try and get a reporter from reporting on a story to hire someone to threaten another person.
I did not read explicit physical threat in that, but I read someone who is willing to play dirty and threaten someone using various methods. This is also something Cohen has said:
Quote: When asked why he made the payment, Cohen told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."
Put these pieces together, and I don't find the Daniel's claim of someone threatening her in 2011 to be unbelievable. Do you think it's unbelievable?
First bolded: So a brash abrasive person who brawls in the legal arena, is a type of person who would 'hire someone to threaten another person'. Wow. Im actually speechless at how thin this is, to be blunt.
Second bolded: So in Lad-world, when in the midst of making a legal threat, you can only use 'please', or just 'pretty please with a cherry on top'? No offense Lad, but with that statement you are showing you are utterly and completely clueless about the world of hard-nosed litigation.
Using that analogy, I guess you will be saying I'm the type of person who would be liable to buy some Semtex and blow up some offices.
Lad, the world of litigation and the law is pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat. Hate to burst your bubble. You are showing an extraordinary amount of naivete in characterizing lawyers who say these things as 'capable of threatening physical violence' ipso facto. You are showing an incredible amount of ignorance of the actual, real world of litigators and how they do their job, *and* what is expected from them. Extreme apologies for the brashness, as calling you ignorant is not in any way, shape, or form a nice thing, but your comments are completely divorced from the reality of the litigation world.
As to whether the allegations of physical violence are believable or unbelievable I dont know. If the sole supporting proof are the comments you are bringing to the table, I would say that supporting proof is utterly useless in making that determination.
But I guess that is good enough smoke for you in this matter.....
(03-26-2018 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford," Michael Cohen said in a statement. "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
Why would Cohen need to offer himself up as the person who paid for the agreement?
Why dont you look at who are the named Parties to the NDA. It will be self-evident when you do. The NDA is in the public domain presently.
That also goes as to the structure of the settlement I talked about previously.
(03-26-2018 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So it IS about her being a PORN star? Here lad was about to convince me that what these women did or were had nothing to do with it, it was all about the lawyer.
I was responding to why it's getting more attention from the media and people in general. Lad was talking about why it might be important. Not necessarily the same thing.
(03-26-2018 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A technicality at best. $130K out of millions? At worst, a fabrication so they can continue talking about the PORN STAR.
I can't recall if it was you or Owl 69 who said part of the outrage at Hilary Clinton was that she was part of an elite to whom the rules don't apply. Yet I've lost track of the number of Trump's transgressions you all have dismissed as technicalities or unimportant.
Not releasing his tax returns like every other presidential candidate for nearly a half century? He's special, he's a super wealthy business man! Those rules don't apply.
Staff lying to the FBI on background checks? Really, haven't we all done that?
Money laundering? Who doesn't launder money every now and then? Well, other than liberal urban elites? Soooo out of touch with Real Americans.
And who doesn't get financing from shady Russian oligarchs?
OK, those might not be *exactly* what you all said. ;-)
But it does sometimes seem like Clinton breaks rule=treason, Trump breaks rule= rule was stupid, so it's OK.
(03-26-2018 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A honest response, and the first such I have heard from the left. Now you know how we on the right feel after years of being referred to as racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and just plain deplorable.
Actually I've heard a lot of people acknowledge the schadenfreude element. And I think there's been quite a bit of honest soul searching by Dems/"the left" regarding Bill Clinton vs Trump. But it's not surprising you haven't heard much of it - much more on the team meeting vs public forum side of things at this point.
(03-26-2018 10:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]But it does sometimes seem like Clinton breaks rule=treason, Trump breaks rule= rule was stupid, so it's OK.
That sounds exactly like what referees hear all the time from coaches:
- Coach's team breaks a rule --> "That's not a foul, let the kids play!"
- Opposing team breaks a rule --> "How can you miss that?!"
(03-26-2018 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford," Michael Cohen said in a statement. "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
Why would Cohen need to offer himself up as the person who paid for the agreement?
Why dont you look at who are the named Parties to the NDA. It will be self-evident when you do. The NDA is in the public domain presently.
That also goes as to the structure of the settlement I talked about previously.
I know about the named parties. The named parties are DD (David Dennison) and PP (Peggy Peterson), which were used to keep the two parties anonymous. A side-letter indicated who DD and PP actually were.
That does not make it self-evident why Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer for Trump, would make the payment out of pocket. Do most NDAs result in the lawyer for one-side making the payment out of pocket? I would imagine that either a different intermediary would be used (like an LLC) or, if anything, the payment would not being coming out of the pocket of anyone outside of the client being represented.
(03-26-2018 10:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You must not have read my entire response.
I did touch on the fact that this story is juicy and people love gossip. I mean, just look at the fact that the National Enquirer is still in business.
What I then said was that, with Stormy Daniels, the real story revolves around the NDA and not her being a porn star. Notice the qualifier I tagged on? I can't help what people like to hear, and even provided my frustration about the fascination of the dirty details.
I like how you try to minimize the potential campaign finance violation due to the size of the violation. Committing a crime is still committing a crime. And that story is NO fabrication. Cohen has admitted that he paid the $130,000 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/...dex.html).
And based on the type of language Cohen has used when making threats in the past, against people who may speak out against Trump, I wouldn't doubt the Daniels story.
I think you are stretching it here.
Quote:Especially since it was from 2011 and Trump was mulling a run for president in 2012. Here is Cohen apologizing for a threat he made to a reporter in 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2306290
Here is what he said:
Quote:“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up,” an enraged Cohen told The Daily Beast
followed by
Quote:“Tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting,” he menaced.
You *do* realize he is an attorney, right? To be blunt, I have been in rooms where scores of attorneys have said this and it's equivalent.
You have an absolute right to read physical threat into it, but all I see here is blustering legal action.
But to stretch that into nothing but an unambiguous physical threat is really kind of a serious stretch here, Lad.
That is not the stretch I am making. The stretch I am making is that I would not put it past someone who would use that kind of language and tone to try and get a reporter from reporting on a story to hire someone to threaten another person.
I did not read explicit physical threat in that, but I read someone who is willing to play dirty and threaten someone using various methods. This is also something Cohen has said:
Quote: When asked why he made the payment, Cohen told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."
Put these pieces together, and I don't find the Daniel's claim of someone threatening her in 2011 to be unbelievable. Do you think it's unbelievable?
First bolded: So a brash abrasive person who brawls in the legal arena, is a type of person who would 'hire someone to threaten another person'. Wow. Im actually speechless at how thin this is, to be blunt.
Second bolded: So in Lad-world, when in the midst of making a legal threat, you can only use 'please', or just 'pretty please with a cherry on top'? No offense Lad, but with that statement you are showing you are utterly and completely clueless about the world of hard-nosed litigation.
Using that analogy, I guess you will be saying I'm the type of person who would be liable to buy some Semtex and blow up some offices.
Lad, the world of litigation and the law is pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat. Hate to burst your bubble. You are showing an extraordinary amount of naivete in characterizing lawyers who say these things as 'capable of threatening physical violence' ipso facto. You are showing an incredible amount of ignorance of the actual, real world of litigators and how they do their job, *and* what is expected from them. Extreme apologies for the brashness, as calling you ignorant is not in any way, shape, or form a nice thing, but your comments are completely divorced from the reality of the litigation world.
As to whether the allegations of physical violence are believable or unbelievable I dont know. If the sole supporting proof are the comments you are bringing to the table, I would say that supporting proof is utterly useless in making that determination.
But I guess that is good enough smoke for you in this matter.....
So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."
But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?
So I'm naive to think that the type of language someone uses could be a proxy for the lengths they would go to protect a client, but you're not naive to think that someone's actions in a "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" job end with verbal threats of litigation?
(03-26-2018 10:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]But it does sometimes seem like Clinton breaks rule=treason, Trump breaks rule= rule was stupid, so it's OK.
That sounds exactly like what referees hear all the time from coaches:
- Coach's team breaks a rule --> "That's not a foul, let the kids play!"
- Opposing team breaks a rule --> "How can you miss that?!"
I used to ref soccer a lot in middle and high school, and I played as well (and still do). My teammates always hated it when, as they were complaining to the ref, I was trying to explain to them that, no, you did commit a foul. The refs also hated it when I laid into them for missing a really obvious call (I tried to make it up to them by complimenting them on the good ones).
(03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."
But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?
Yes, that's exactly correct.
(03-26-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The refs also hated it when I laid into them for missing a really obvious call...
Two questions:
- Did you lay into them for missing "really obvious" calls both ways, or chiefly when the "really obvious" call would have benefited your team?
- What were you trying to accomplish by doing so?
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."
But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?
Yes, that's exactly correct.
I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The refs also hated it when I laid into them for missing a really obvious call...
Two questions:
- Did you lay into them for missing "really obvious" calls both ways, or chiefly when the "really obvious" call would have benefited your team?
- What were you trying to accomplish by doing so?
Oh, obviously only when they went against my team. Why would I complain when I was getting the benefit of the doubt?
And trying to change the ref's mind obviously! I remembered how many times I changed my call based on the well reasoned and rationale arguments made in the heat of the moment, that I figured I'd give it a shot. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take George.
(03-26-2018 10:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]Not releasing his tax returns like every other presidential candidate for nearly a half century? He's special, he's a super wealthy business man! Those rules don't apply.
Could you please cite the FEC regulation or election law that requires a candidate to release tax returns? Hate to tell you, not a 'rule'. More of a more. Kind of like the one that limited the amount of funds that a Presidential campaign could spend, before that one got kicked to the curbside as well.
Quote:Staff lying to the FBI on background checks? Really, haven't we all done that?
Please state which staffer made a false statement with intent. Or do you also throw into the mix making an honest mistake when making a false statement into a much greater grab bag of 'lying' (as many are wont to do these days). Or are you just lobbing a provocative loaded word there for ***** and giggles?
Quote:Money laundering? Who doesn't launder money every now and then? Well, other than liberal urban elites? Soooo out of touch with Real Americans.
Did you know that what the DOJ regards as 'money laundering' is simply using a bank with what the DOJ regards as 'ill gotten gains'? That is what is being referred to, actually. At least some of the Mueller money laundering claims are based on fees paid when one doesnt file a piece of paper, and when previous people who have faced that insidious charge of not filing that piece of paper face the daunting penalty of..... having to file that piece of paper.
In the enhanced indictments, there are other activities that go well beyond that insidious action of not filing that piece of paper; substantial issues of tax fraud and money laundering are warranted, since if the tax fraud is shown as alleged, yep, putting that money in the bank *is* defined as laundering.
Satisfied?
Quote:And who doesn't get financing from shady Russian oligarchs?
A nice open ended statement.... cute. I guess I need to tell some of my ex-clients they shouldnt do business in Russia or with any Russians.
Quote:But it does sometimes seem like Clinton breaks rule=treason, Trump breaks rule= rule was stupid, so it's OK.
Actually the actions that Madame Hillary employed are defined as criminally actionable under 792(f), and others. Not breaking a 'rule' -- breaking the fing law.
If Mueller shows there was a criminal conspiracy with shady Russian oligarchs, sure -- Trump should be charged. I dont think anyone has disputed this. Or should dispute this. But show us the actions and the law that is being broken with those actions as opposed to a bunch of disjointed smoke.
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."
But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?
Yes, that's exactly correct.
I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?
They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. You even alluded to that with your description of me the other day. And I'm a 'nice' one.... Next question?
To be blunt Lad, an attorney who crosses that 'certain line' destroys his or her own value in the profession. That would create an edge that others who are on the opposite side could (and should) exploit to the maximum.
If an attorney on the opposite of me threatened my client with physical harm, there is no way they would leave the table with their skin intact relating to the matter in front of us.
(03-26-2018 10:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]I can't recall if it was you or Owl 69 who said part of the outrage at Hilary Clinton was that she was part of an elite to whom the rules don't apply. Yet I've lost track of the number of Trump's transgressions you all have dismissed as technicalities or unimportant.
I assure you, it is in the low single digits. If it was Owl69 who said it, I wholeheartedly agree. The email investigation alone shows that.
Quote:Not releasing his tax returns like every other presidential candidate for nearly a half century? He's special, he's a super wealthy business man! Those rules don't apply.
what rules? Are you talking about recent custom and calling it rules?
Quote:Staff lying to the FBI on background checks? Really, haven't we all done that?
don't know about you, but I would be terrified to have an antagonistic and biased FBI question me as a background check. I certainly cannot remember every contact I have had with a foreign national, and if I got a date wrong, indictment city.
Quote:Money laundering? Who doesn't launder money every now and then? Well, other than liberal urban elites? Soooo out of touch with Real Americans.
Oh, this is rich. You have no problem with the way the dossier was obtained, yet this is a biggie to you? Exactly the sort of double standard I was referring to.
FTR, the Clinton Campaign gave money to a law firm, who gave it to a Brit, who gave it to RUSSIANS!!!!!
Much better, more honest, than a 15 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer that one dismissed out of hand and gave nothing.
Quote:And who doesn't get financing from shady Russian oligarchs?
People who are not building hotels in Russia. Duh.
Quote:OK, those might not be *exactly* what you all said. ;-)
I can say more, if you wish.
Quote:But it does sometimes seem like Clinton breaks rule=treason, Trump breaks rule= rule was stupid, so it's OK.
And vice-versa, But at least nobody is calling you a stupid redneck racist.
Quote:Actually I've heard a lot of people acknowledge the schadenfreude element. And I think there's been quite a bit of honest soul searching by Dems/"the left" regarding Bill Clinton vs Trump. But it's not surprising you haven't heard much of it - much more on the team meeting vs public forum side of things at this point.
AFAIK, you are the first.
(03-26-2018 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."
But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?
Yes, that's exactly correct.
I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?
They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. Next question?
But they have such strong moral fibers that they would never cross the line we're discussing. Got it.
(03-26-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 11:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2018 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The refs also hated it when I laid into them for missing a really obvious call...
Two questions:
- Did you lay into them for missing "really obvious" calls both ways, or chiefly when the "really obvious" call would have benefited your team?
- What were you trying to accomplish by doing so?
Oh, obviously only when they went against my team. Why would I complain when I was getting the benefit of the doubt?
Of course. So, how much credibility do you think you had with the officials?
(03-26-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And trying to change the ref's mind obviously! I remembered how many times I changed my call based on the well reasoned and rationale arguments made in the heat of the moment, that I figured I'd give it a shot. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take George.
I guarantee you that this strategy is counter-productive, in two ways:
- Constant carping distracts the officials' focus, which makes them less likely to make correct calls for
either team; and
- Constant carping destroys your own credibility, which makes it more likely that borderline calls will go against your team rather than for your team.
But of course, most carping is done primarily for reasons of posturing to an audience -- to players, to fans, to other constituents, and most often to oneself -- rather than for objectively helping the team.