(06-08-2017 07:45 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Just a small point: Federal courts (particularly appellate courts) have a duty to assess their own subject-matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties agree or contest the issue. In other words, whether or not the Obama DOJ contested standing is *theoretically* irrelevant - the courts should have addressed the issue anyway.

But the issue was that the putative defender in the case (DOJ) was abstaining from actively defending, and actively litigating against anyone else having standing to defend.

And they have pulled this stunt massively not just in the California gay marriage cases, but in a noticeable number of lawsuits where they have colluded with the plaintiffs in order to get a judgement that the DOJ-de jour and plaintiffs want in order to circumvent or change the administrative rules in place.

The issue isnt the court determining standing issues sua sponte; the issue is collusive lawsuits and a DOJ that cockblocks actual interested parties.

(06-08-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Chris Matthews

Now Dershowitz

(06-08-2017 09:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Chris Matthews

Now Dershowitz

If Dershowitz is right, the whole case against Trump goes up in smoke, unless they can prove actual collusion with "the Russians" to hijack the election. And Chris Matthews says that is dead.

(06-08-2017 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Chris Matthews

Now Dershowitz

If Dershowitz is right, the whole case against Trump goes up in smoke, unless they can prove actual collusion with "the Russians" to hijack the election. And Chris Matthews says that is dead.

Months ago, I asked for some coherent scenario for collusion. All I got was a bunch of hooey about smoke.

(06-08-2017 09:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Chris Matthews

Now Dershowitz

If Dershowitz is right, the whole case against Trump goes up in smoke, unless they can prove actual collusion with "the Russians" to hijack the election. And Chris Matthews says that is dead.

Months ago, I asked for some coherent scenario for collusion. All I got was a bunch of hooey about smoke.

There really has never been a strong case of collusion against Trump himself. The issue primarily focused on his election/transition team, and the role they played. There are/were so many figures involved that had significant connections to Russia and who were then never upfront about their Russian interactions, leading to suspicion. I mean, you had Flynn repeatedly contacting a senior Russia official, lying about those interactions, and then being forced to resign.

The most likely issue Trump himself may have to deal with is obstructing an investigation or helping to cover up misdeeds.

I think Trump likely has non-collusion related issues he is more worried about (like being in debt to shady characters or laundering money), but that does go into the tin foil hat arena.

The Comey testimony does not really clear up anything outside of the fact that Trump was not under investigation while Comey was in charge of the FBI. Or, as Dershowitz actually points out, Trump TECHNICALLY couldn't obstruct justice by pressuring Comey because he argues that Trump has the Constitutional authority to direct investigations, even ones that may implicate himself.

"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

He singled out one explosive New York Times story, called "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence," describing it as "almost entirely wrong."

Bad smoke. From the NYT?

(06-08-2017 09:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There really has never been a strong case of collusion against Trump himself. The issue primarily focused on his election/transition team, and the role they played. There are/were so many figures involved that had significant connections to Russia and who were then never upfront about their Russian interactions, leading to suspicion. I mean, you had Flynn repeatedly contacting a senior Russia official, lying about those interactions, and then being forced to resign.
The most likely issue Trump himself may have to deal with is obstructing an investigation or helping to cover up misdeeds.
I think Trump likely has non-collusion related issues he is more worried about (like being in debt to shady characters or laundering money), but that does go into the tin foil hat arena.
The Comey testimony does not really clear up anything outside of the fact that Trump was not under investigation while Comey was in charge of the FBI. Or, as Dershowitz actually points out, Trump TECHNICALLY couldn't obstruct justice by pressuring Comey because he argues that Trump has the Constitutional authority to direct investigations, even ones that may implicate himself.

If Dershowitz is right, there is really no legal case against Trump. But I don't think this has ever been about legal/illegal or right/wrong. I think the left saw an issue that they could make a bunch of allegations and conjectures about, and thus tie up the Trump team to keep them from pursuing their agenda. This has always sounded to me like, "Well, so-and-so talked to so-and-so, and Hillary lost, so there must have been collusion." What I've seen is a lot of dots without any lines to connect them. With the appointment of a special prosecutor, they can tie this up a while longer, I'm guessing probably another six months. Maybe a year, depending on how slowly things move. But Bobby Three Sticks has the reputation for moving in a hurry, and I would expect him to do that here. Unless there is something big that has not shown any signs of existence so far, this is going to unravel at some point. And when it does, I think the democrats will pay a high price in the form of backlash. They went all in on this. Why, I don't know. It never looked like more than a long shot to me. But maybe they were just so blinded by Trump hatred that they made the same mistake that republicans made with Monicagate. Or maybe this is what our political process has become. Nobody has any good ideas, so instead of a campaign of ideas, it is now all about smearing the other guy. I hope we get past that, but I am not optimistic. If anything does get us over it, it may be the realization that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and unless something comes out of the woodwork on this, it didn't work.

I also doubt that Trump has the kinds of financial worries that are being projected onto him by some. Yes, he has borrowed a lot of money. That's what you do when you are a real estate developer. But he's also got a lot of assets. And with proper legal advice--and that takes only money, which he has--you structure those deals so that you don't have much personal exposure. He's got some risk, to be sure. In the face of total economic meltdown, he probably could get hurt some. But as long as he has been doing the game, and assuming he has followed competent financial advice, he has enough free and clear that he will be comfortable forever. Quite honestly, if he weren't in that position he could never have afforded to run for president. He had made a couple of abortive attempts in the past. My guess is that he realized that he was not in financial position to make a run and pulled back. So he solved that problem before running for real. As far as ideas that he has borrowed from "the Russians" or "shady characters," sometimes that's who's lending. If you structure the deals properly, you are pretty well insulated. I'm going to assume that he did, because that's pretty easy for a prudent person with competent advice to do.

(06-09-2017 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Dershowitz is right, there is really no legal case against Trump. But I don't think this has ever been about legal/illegal or right/wrong. I think the left saw an issue that they could make a bunch of allegations and conjectures about, and thus tie up the Trump team to keep them from pursuing their agenda. This has always sounded to me like, "Well, so-and-so talked to so-and-so, and Hillary lost, so there must have been collusion." What I've seen is a lot of dots without any lines to connect them. With the appointment of a special prosecutor, they can tie this up a while longer, I'm guessing probably another six months. Maybe a year, depending on how slowly things move. But Bobby Three Sticks has the reputation for moving in a hurry, and I would expect him to do that here. Unless there is something big that has not shown any signs of existence so far, this is going to unravel at some point. And when it does, I think the democrats will pay a high price in the form of backlash. They went all in on this. Why, I don't know. It never looked like more than a long shot to me. But maybe they were just so blinded by Trump hatred that they made the same mistake that republicans made with Monicagate. Or maybe this is what our political process has become. Nobody has any good ideas, so instead of a campaign of ideas, it is now all about smearing the other guy. I hope we get past that, but I am not optimistic. If anything does get us over it, it may be the realization that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and unless something comes out of the woodwork on this, it didn't work.

I also doubt that Trump has the kinds of financial worries that are being projected onto him by some. Yes, he has borrowed a lot of money. That's what you do when you are a real estate developer. But he's also got a lot of assets. And with proper legal advice--and that takes only money, which he has--you structure those deals so that you don't have much personal exposure. He's got some risk, to be sure. In the face of total economic meltdown, he probably could get hurt some. But as long as he has been doing the game, and assuming he has followed competent financial advice, he has enough free and clear that he will be comfortable forever. Quite honestly, if he weren't in that position he could never have afforded to run for president. He had made a couple of abortive attempts in the past. My guess is that he realized that he was not in financial position to make a run and pulled back. So he solved that problem before running for real. As far as ideas that he has borrowed from "the Russians" or "shady characters," sometimes that's who's lending. If you structure the deals properly, you are pretty well insulated. I'm going to assume that he did, because that's pretty easy for a prudent person with competent advice to do.

Well said.

The idea that Trump is a prisoner of his borrowing has been floated before. Seems like a fantasy to me. And what does "shady characters" mean? Loan sharks? Unions? The Mafia? Are we to see men in fedoras coming to the WH to break knees?

(06-09-2017 07:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Dershowitz is right, there is really no legal case against Trump. But I don't think this has ever been about legal/illegal or right/wrong. I think the left saw an issue that they could make a bunch of allegations and conjectures about, and thus tie up the Trump team to keep them from pursuing their agenda. This has always sounded to me like, "Well, so-and-so talked to so-and-so, and Hillary lost, so there must have been collusion." What I've seen is a lot of dots without any lines to connect them. With the appointment of a special prosecutor, they can tie this up a while longer, I'm guessing probably another six months. Maybe a year, depending on how slowly things move. But Bobby Three Sticks has the reputation for moving in a hurry, and I would expect him to do that here. Unless there is something big that has not shown any signs of existence so far, this is going to unravel at some point. And when it does, I think the democrats will pay a high price in the form of backlash. They went all in on this. Why, I don't know. It never looked like more than a long shot to me. But maybe they were just so blinded by Trump hatred that they made the same mistake that republicans made with Monicagate. Or maybe this is what our political process has become. Nobody has any good ideas, so instead of a campaign of ideas, it is now all about smearing the other guy. I hope we get past that, but I am not optimistic. If anything does get us over it, it may be the realization that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and unless something comes out of the woodwork on this, it didn't work.

I also doubt that Trump has the kinds of financial worries that are being projected onto him by some. Yes, he has borrowed a lot of money. That's what you do when you are a real estate developer. But he's also got a lot of assets. And with proper legal advice--and that takes only money, which he has--you structure those deals so that you don't have much personal exposure. He's got some risk, to be sure. In the face of total economic meltdown, he probably could get hurt some. But as long as he has been doing the game, and assuming he has followed competent financial advice, he has enough free and clear that he will be comfortable forever. Quite honestly, if he weren't in that position he could never have afforded to run for president. He had made a couple of abortive attempts in the past. My guess is that he realized that he was not in financial position to make a run and pulled back. So he solved that problem before running for real. As far as ideas that he has borrowed from "the Russians" or "shady characters," sometimes that's who's lending. If you structure the deals properly, you are pretty well insulated. I'm going to assume that he did, because that's pretty easy for a prudent person with competent advice to do.

Well said.

The idea that Trump is a prisoner of his borrowing has been floated before. Seems like a fantasy to me. And what does "shady characters" mean? Loan sharks? Unions? The Mafia? Are we to see men in fedoras coming to the WH to break knees?

Fedoras? The MOB?

Maybe this is the activity that prevents them from spending more time on half-time shows!

(Now we know who, from whom on this board, we need to protect our kneecaps.)

(06-09-2017 07:41 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 07:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Dershowitz is right, there is really no legal case against Trump. But I don't think this has ever been about legal/illegal or right/wrong. I think the left saw an issue that they could make a bunch of allegations and conjectures about, and thus tie up the Trump team to keep them from pursuing their agenda. This has always sounded to me like, "Well, so-and-so talked to so-and-so, and Hillary lost, so there must have been collusion." What I've seen is a lot of dots without any lines to connect them. With the appointment of a special prosecutor, they can tie this up a while longer, I'm guessing probably another six months. Maybe a year, depending on how slowly things move. But Bobby Three Sticks has the reputation for moving in a hurry, and I would expect him to do that here. Unless there is something big that has not shown any signs of existence so far, this is going to unravel at some point. And when it does, I think the democrats will pay a high price in the form of backlash. They went all in on this. Why, I don't know. It never looked like more than a long shot to me. But maybe they were just so blinded by Trump hatred that they made the same mistake that republicans made with Monicagate. Or maybe this is what our political process has become. Nobody has any good ideas, so instead of a campaign of ideas, it is now all about smearing the other guy. I hope we get past that, but I am not optimistic. If anything does get us over it, it may be the realization that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and unless something comes out of the woodwork on this, it didn't work.

I also doubt that Trump has the kinds of financial worries that are being projected onto him by some. Yes, he has borrowed a lot of money. That's what you do when you are a real estate developer. But he's also got a lot of assets. And with proper legal advice--and that takes only money, which he has--you structure those deals so that you don't have much personal exposure. He's got some risk, to be sure. In the face of total economic meltdown, he probably could get hurt some. But as long as he has been doing the game, and assuming he has followed competent financial advice, he has enough free and clear that he will be comfortable forever. Quite honestly, if he weren't in that position he could never have afforded to run for president. He had made a couple of abortive attempts in the past. My guess is that he realized that he was not in financial position to make a run and pulled back. So he solved that problem before running for real. As far as ideas that he has borrowed from "the Russians" or "shady characters," sometimes that's who's lending. If you structure the deals properly, you are pretty well insulated. I'm going to assume that he did, because that's pretty easy for a prudent person with competent advice to do.

Well said.

The idea that Trump is a prisoner of his borrowing has been floated before. Seems like a fantasy to me. And what does "shady characters" mean? Loan sharks? Unions? The Mafia? Are we to see men in fedoras coming to the WH to break knees?

Fedoras? The MOB?

Maybe this is the activity that prevents them from spending more time on half-time shows!

Good catch, Rick. LOL. But no, I don't think the "shady characters" that Trump may have dealt with are the Marching Owl Band. I doubt they could loan him more than $20-30 big ones, and I do mean ones.

(06-08-2017 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to the Matthew's thing, I've said many times on this board, I would be shocked if Trump himself was directly connected to collusion with Russia (despite some posters telling me otherwise). But at this point I would be shocked if those around Trump were not found to have more nefarious dealings with them. Way too many forgotten meetings by the likes of Flynn and Sessions.

Yeah, I don't know many who expect to find video of Trump and Putin maniacally doing the mwahahahaha laugh. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot to be investigated.

I tend to think Bannon and Trump are just useful idiots for Putin. They actually think undermining NATO and the western alliance is somehow good for America. Now, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, etc.? I have no idea what's going on there. Hopefully Mueller can get to the bottom of it.

Regardless, it's hilarious that Trump is claiming "total vindication". When the former FBI director testifies under oath and calls you a liar repeatedly, suggests its in your "nature" to lie, well that's not good. And how was Trump's behavior in any way appropriate, even if it doesn't end up being obstruction of justice? Hell, even Jeff "KKK jokes are funny" Sessions seemed to think it was inappropriate.

To Barrett's point, the idea that the R's wouldn't have been all over this if it was reversed is laughable.

But honestly on some level, I agree with those who think it's time to move on, because I think it's distracting from debate on some of the horrible policies Trump is proposing. Health care has its own thread, but there's also Dodd-Frank, which the house gutted yesterday - so Trump (and Sanders) criticized Hillary for giving a speech to Goldman-Sachs. But half of Trump's cabinet is from Goldman-Sachs and now he wants to totally deregulate them so they can destroy our economy again. Sessions wants to bring back the disastrous "war on drugs" and roll back progress on criminal justice reform that used to have bi-partisan support. Etc.

Let Mueller run his investigation and we'll see what he turns up.

(06-09-2017 07:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

He singled out one explosive New York Times story, called "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence," describing it as "almost entirely wrong."

Bad smoke. From the NYT?

I'm interested in what parts of the article are not true.

Comey specifically said "In the main, it was not true." The story was about, as the title implies, repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. I took Comey's comments to mean that the Trump campaign was not communicating with Russian intelligence, not necessarily that they were not communicating with Russian officials. As Comey said, he did not consider Kislyak to be an intelligence officer.

Comey did not flatly deny the entire article and what was reported, and seemed to more talk about the interpretation of events, which leads me to believe my analysis is correct and not that there were no contacts between the two parties.

(06-09-2017 08:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  To Barrett's point, the idea that the R's wouldn't have been all over this if it was reversed is laughable.

But honestly on some level, I agree with those who think it's time to move on, because I think it's distracting from debate on some of the horrible policies Trump is proposing. Health care has its own thread, but there's also Dodd-Frank, which the house gutted yesterday - so Trump (and Sanders) criticized Hillary for giving a speech to Goldman-Sachs. But half of Trump's cabinet is from Goldman-Sachs and now he wants to totally deregulate them so they can destroy our economy again. Sessions wants to bring back the disastrous "war on drugs" and roll back progress on criminal justice reform that used to have bi-partisan support. Etc.

Let Mueller run his investigation and we'll see what he turns up.

I agree. Now that a special prosecutor has been brought in and the potentially conflicted parties have been removed, the investigation should run its course and whatever the outcome is, both sides will have to accept it.

Personally, I'd prefer that we just have a bunch of incompetent fools in our government leadership who just looked like they were trying to hide meetings and connections with Russia than a bunch of potentially conspirators who were working to abide a hostile government.

David Brook's take:

"It's not the crime, it's the culture"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opini...share&_r=0

(06-09-2017 08:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  To Barrett's point, the idea that the R's wouldn't have been all over this if it was reversed is laughable.

But honestly on some level, I agree with those who think it's time to move on, because I think it's distracting from debate on some of the horrible policies Trump is proposing. Health care has its own thread, but there's also Dodd-Frank, which the house gutted yesterday - so Trump (and Sanders) criticized Hillary for giving a speech to Goldman-Sachs. But half of Trump's cabinet is from Goldman-Sachs and now he wants to totally deregulate them so they can destroy our economy again. Sessions wants to bring back the disastrous "war on drugs" and roll back progress on criminal justice reform that used to have bi-partisan support. Etc.

Let Mueller run his investigation and we'll see what he turns up.

This article couldn't be more relevant to your first comment:

"FOX NEWS WAS ATTACKING BARACK OBAMA FOR USING DIJON MUSTARD AT THIS POINT IN HIS PRESIDENCY"

http://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-don...ake-623643

I miss these types of scandals. Like covfefe, that was a good one President Trump. Let's stick to covfefes and not firing the head of the FBI for not publicly stating you were not personally under investigation.

"Trump makes bizarre claims at press event as Cabinet members take turns praising him"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-mak...g-him.html

All Trump, all the time.

9th Court knocks down the travel ban and directly cites a Trump tweet since it has been put forth that Trump's tweets are official statements.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/87...9432469505

(06-12-2017 03:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "Trump makes bizarre claims at press event as Cabinet members take turns praising him"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-mak...g-him.html

And apparently, this is the first time he's met with the cabinet as a whole.

Does Trump remind anyone else of Edwin Edwards?