(03-26-2018 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Now, for some levity:

What is the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the snake.

Did you hear they replaced little white mice with lawyers for medical experiments?

First, the nurses have far more compassion for little white mice.
Second, there are almost as many attorneys as there are little white mice.
Third, they found a shortcoming in using little white mice in that there are things that little white mice just wont do.

----------------------

Guy has two friends over for dinner and they all bring their dogs.

Friend 1, who is an architect, brags about his dog King and his abilities. Friend 1 says "King go do your stuff". King gives a happy bark and races into an office and comes out with some cardboard and scissors, and proceeds to make a scale model of the Friend 1's house. Friend 1 says "Good boy, King" and tosses King half of the ribeye he has on his plate.

Friend 2, who is an cook, proceeds to brags about his dog Rex and his abilities. Friend 2 says "Rex go do your stuff". Rex gives out a happy yelp and races into the kitchen and proceeds to make a Fond du Chocolat. Friend 2 says "Good boy, Rex" and tosses Rex half of the ribeye he has on his plate.

Host, who is an attorney, then says "My dog Sociopath is awesome." He whistles and Sociopath ambles into the room, with saliva dripping out of his snout. Host says "Sociopath, go do your thing." Sociopath gives out a low sanrl, bares his teeth, then races over to Rex and King, eats their ribeyes, and ***** them in the ***.

(03-26-2018 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Threatening physical violence is at least a high misdemeanor, sometimes a felony. Period. Don't try to squeeze that into 'posturing'. The same action coupled with the 'or else settle' is felony extortion. Period.

One *could* posture in this manner, but that would be screwing the hell out of the client (and any career) if one does so.

If one wants a fast track to disbarment on the pronto highway, this would be a picture perfect way to do it. For multiples of ethical violations and bar violations.

To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.

The law as I have read it (American Bar Association's ethics rule, Rule 1.8 (e) states:

Quote:(e) A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that:

(1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and

(2) a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the client.

So pretty much the same thing. Is paying $130,000 out of pocket not financial assistance?

Above The Law states that in all liklihood Cohen didn't make the personal payment himself (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/02/would-ev...hand/?rf=1) but I still can't figure out why Cohen went this route and not another (there must be plenty of other routes he could go down that avoid him stating that DJT paid Daniels).

edit: to your other items, I would have thought that an NDA would at least be contemplated litigation in the sense that the whole point of an NDA is that if one party breaks the NDA, then there would be litigation. But I'm not a lawyer and that is digging deep into my own personal thoughts on the matter.

Contemplated litigation is when you talk to your attorneys about how and when to file. Or how and when to settle before filing. The 'contemplated' means concrete plans are in place or are being put into place.

It is well down the road from executing an NDA. Simply put it is a contract -- 130k for you, and we are both precluded from ever talking about this. Every contract has a possibility of being breached. But this doesnt mean at all that there is litigation concretely planned for relating to it.

The kicker is if Daniels in fact has breached the NDA, the contractually agreed to damages in the NDA will utterly destroy her financially.

---------------------------

You misstate the rule. ABA rules have no effect of law. ABA is simply a trade association. No one is licensed by the ABA, nor subject to its rules. Only licensing authorities have the power to promulgate ethical rules that are followed as a matter of law. The correct rule is the New York rule I cited.

Further, this rule (and all of its variations) are there so that an attorney cannot exercise undue influence on plaintiff during litigation and pre-litigation. For example, you get injured and want to sue. You are not indigent. You can pay (somewhat). If I advance you living expenses, I will de facto have an enormous amount of undue influence on you, and could pressure you to settle for my sake, and leave your interests diminished. That is the purpose of the rule.

It is completely inapplicable in this situation.

Cohen is not losing an iota of sleep over this.

(03-26-2018 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.

(03-26-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Contemplated litigation is when you talk to your attorneys about how and when to file. Or how and when to settle before filing. The 'contemplated' means concrete plans are in place or are being put into place.

It is well down the road from executing an NDA. Simply put it is a contract -- 130k for you, and we are both precluded from ever talking about this. Every contract has a possibility of being breached. But this doesnt mean at all that there is litigation concretely planned for relating to it.

The kicker is if Daniels in fact has breached the NDA, the contractually agreed to damages in the NDA will utterly destroy her financially.

---------------------------

You misstate the rule. ABA rules have no effect of law. ABA is simply a trade association. No one is licensed by the ABA, nor subject to its rules. Only licensing authorities have the power to promulgate ethical rules that are followed as a matter of law. The correct rule is the New York rule I cited.

Further, this rule (and all of its variations) are there so that an attorney cannot exercise undue influence on plaintiff during litigation and pre-litigation. For example, you get injured and want to sue. You are not indigent. You can pay (somewhat). If I advance you living expenses, I will de facto have an enormous amount of undue influence on you, and could pressure you to settle for my sake, and leave your interests diminished. That is the purpose of the rule.

It is completely inapplicable in this situation.

Cohen is not losing an iota of sleep over this.

(03-26-2018 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.

As to the bolded, there is no "standing" requirement to raise issues of professional misconduct. A state bar can prosecute and discipline any alleged misconduct of which it becomes aware, through whatever means.

The NY state bar does not need to wait until Trump (the client on whose behalf funds were "advanced") complains (which presumably won't be happening) in order to discipline Cohen. An ethical offense is an offense against the profession and the public, and doesn't require that any specific person such as a client be aggrieved, much less that such a person has to be the one who reports it. To use just the most obvious example, a divorce lawyer cannot have sex with a client, period. Even if the client never complains -- even if they end up marrying each other and living happily ever after -- the ethical violation could still be prosecuted. If Cohen violated ethics rules in the course of representing Trump, he absolutely can be disciplined regardless of whether Trump objected/objects to the conduct giving rise to the violation.

In any event, arguing the minutiae and intent of Rule 1.8 in an effort to exonerate Cohen is straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. Even by Cohen's own fantastical telling, he settled a matter for his client (Trump) without his knowledge or consent. Those are obvious violations. The salient rules are 1.2 and 1.4.

Quote:RULE 1.2: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND LAWYER
(a) Subject to the provisions herein, a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.

Quote:RULE 1.4: COMMUNICATION
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of:
(i) any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(j), is required by these Rules;
(ii) any information required by court rule or other law to be communicated to a client; and
(iii) material developments in the matter including settlement or plea offers.
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with a client’s reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by these Rules or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

I think both are bad, and arguing which is worse is kind of like debating virginity in a whorehouse.

(03-26-2018 06:05 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.

(03-26-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Contemplated litigation is when you talk to your attorneys about how and when to file. Or how and when to settle before filing. The 'contemplated' means concrete plans are in place or are being put into place.

It is well down the road from executing an NDA. Simply put it is a contract -- 130k for you, and we are both precluded from ever talking about this. Every contract has a possibility of being breached. But this doesnt mean at all that there is litigation concretely planned for relating to it.

The kicker is if Daniels in fact has breached the NDA, the contractually agreed to damages in the NDA will utterly destroy her financially.

---------------------------

You misstate the rule. ABA rules have no effect of law. ABA is simply a trade association. No one is licensed by the ABA, nor subject to its rules. Only licensing authorities have the power to promulgate ethical rules that are followed as a matter of law. The correct rule is the New York rule I cited.

Further, this rule (and all of its variations) are there so that an attorney cannot exercise undue influence on plaintiff during litigation and pre-litigation. For example, you get injured and want to sue. You are not indigent. You can pay (somewhat). If I advance you living expenses, I will de facto have an enormous amount of undue influence on you, and could pressure you to settle for my sake, and leave your interests diminished. That is the purpose of the rule.

It is completely inapplicable in this situation.

Cohen is not losing an iota of sleep over this.

(03-26-2018 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.

As to the bolded, there is no "standing" requirement to raise issues of professional misconduct. A state bar can prosecute and discipline any alleged misconduct of which it becomes aware, through whatever means.

The NY state bar does not need to wait until Trump (the client on whose behalf funds were "advanced") complains (which presumably won't be happening) in order to discipline Cohen. An ethical offense is an offense against the profession and the public, and doesn't require that any specific person such as a client be aggrieved, much less that such a person has to be the one who reports it. To use just the most obvious example, a divorce lawyer cannot have sex with a client, period. Even if the client never complains -- even if they end up marrying each other and living happily ever after -- the ethical violation could still be prosecuted. If Cohen violated ethics rules in the course of representing Trump, he absolutely can be disciplined regardless of whether Trump objected/objects to the conduct giving rise to the violation.

In any event, arguing the minutiae and intent of Rule 1.8 in an effort to exonerate Cohen is straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. Even by Cohen's own fantastical telling, he settled a matter for his client (Trump) without his knowledge or consent. Those are obvious violations. The salient rules are 1.2 and 1.4.

Quote:RULE 1.2: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND LAWYER
(a) Subject to the provisions herein, a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.

Quote:RULE 1.4: COMMUNICATION
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of:
(i) any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(j), is required by these Rules;
(ii) any information required by court rule or other law to be communicated to a client; and
(iii) material developments in the matter including settlement or plea offers.
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with a client’s reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by these Rules or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

I take it you are on Cohen's Trump legal team? I am not, and therefore am not privy to what, if anything, Cohen and Trump talked about, nor to any knowledge or instructions (or lack thereof) between the two on the matter you speak of above. Notwithstanding what Cohen stated. I would opine probably the *only* two people that can make the assertion you do that I bolded above are Cohen and Trump. Would you not agree? Given that I do not know the substance of any communications between the two, I cannot agree with you that they "are obvious violations", let alone *any* or *subtle* violations.

If you are on Cohen's Trump legal team, I would wonder about a commitment to client confidentiality of such opinions were aired to chat room such as this.

As for Cohen's account, well, it is Cohen's account. To be blunt, there are times where an attorney has to fall on a sword to preserve client communication. And perhaps lie to a third party about the presence or lack of communication between the client and the attorney. I can't begin to count the times in a negotiation with multiple competing parties, I have had a client direct me to say 'that the client is considering your offer', when in fact they are in direct talks with a third party and have shelved the deal with the person I am communicating with. I am sure you have experienced the same. And, accordingly, I am sure you are well aware that 'what Cohen says Cohen did' may in fact not the case at all.

(03-26-2018 06:05 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  To use just the most obvious example, a divorce lawyer cannot have sex with a client, period.

To be clear, that's the rule in New York and a couple of other states, but not most of the country.

Not explicitly ruled out in Texas but most lawyers would know better. It would hurt the client because the other side could allege adultery (because client is still married until the divorce is final.). Also, the client is emotionally vulnerable during the divorce and for a while after that. Also family law is hard on the lawyer also and it is important to maintain objectivity (because the client will find it hard to be objective about their own case).

(03-26-2018 07:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 06:05 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  To use just the most obvious example, a divorce lawyer cannot have sex with a client, period.

To be clear, that's the rule in New York and a couple of other states, but not most of the country.

Russian meddling

If Mueller truly is investigating Russian Meddling (HA!) he could start with this article.

(03-27-2018 09:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Russian meddling

If Mueller truly is investigating Russian Meddling (HA!) he could start with this article.

What's your point?

Enough articles have come out that have fairly well established that the Obama admin, for a number of reasons, acted too little and too late on this issue. That, due to both the political climate and the inability to grasp the magnitude of what was about to happen or was going on, they did not address the problem head on until Obama was on his way out.

But this is a complex problem, and one without a really obvious solution (as someone quoted in the article points out).

Quote:"I would have loved to have had more support for that from all across government, not just from the State Department but from the intelligence and defense communities as well," said Rick Stengel, the State Department's undersecretary of state for public affairs under Obama.

"But even today, I'm not sure that there is an effective way of countering, much less thwarting, disinformation and propaganda. And if there is, I haven't heard of it," he said.

Another person who served on the NSC at the time said she was not convinced that Bruen's proposed plan on its own would have thwarted Internet Research Agency activity aimed at the US.

"What we needed, and still don't have, is an analytic cell that sees the full scope of Russian activity. Our inability to put the full picture together in real time was a major part of why this was missed," said the person, who did not want to speak publicly so as to not jeopardize her current position at a nongovernmental organization.

But this article does help explain the situation in ways we haven't really seen. Like how the intelligence agency decided to focus more on ISIS and their online presence/spread. But still, it seems like a lot of it comes down to a miscalculation by the Obama team and the intelligence community.

Quote:"We fully recognized Russians were using social media. We believed their use of it was largely based on trolls and probing acts to get information. At that point, we didn't really see it as a calculated and willful effort to use social media to communicate with groups and do a call for action," a highly placed intelligence source told CNN.

(03-27-2018 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Russian meddling

If Mueller truly is investigating Russian Meddling (HA!) he could start with this article.

What's your point?

Enough articles have come out that have fairly well established that the Obama admin, for a number of reasons, acted too little and too late on this issue. That, due to both the political climate and the inability to grasp the magnitude of what was about to happen or was going on, they did not address the problem head on until Obama was on his way out.

But this is a complex problem, and one without a really obvious solution (as someone quoted in the article points out).

Quote:"I would have loved to have had more support for that from all across government, not just from the State Department but from the intelligence and defense communities as well," said Rick Stengel, the State Department's undersecretary of state for public affairs under Obama.

"But even today, I'm not sure that there is an effective way of countering, much less thwarting, disinformation and propaganda. And if there is, I haven't heard of it," he said.

Another person who served on the NSC at the time said she was not convinced that Bruen's proposed plan on its own would have thwarted Internet Research Agency activity aimed at the US.

"What we needed, and still don't have, is an analytic cell that sees the full scope of Russian activity. Our inability to put the full picture together in real time was a major part of why this was missed," said the person, who did not want to speak publicly so as to not jeopardize her current position at a nongovernmental organization.

But this article does help explain the situation in ways we haven't really seen. Like how the intelligence agency decided to focus more on ISIS and their online presence/spread. But still, it seems like a lot of it comes down to a miscalculation by the Obama team and the intelligence community.

Quote:"We fully recognized Russians were using social media. We believed their use of it was largely based on trolls and probing acts to get information. At that point, we didn't really see it as a calculated and willful effort to use social media to communicate with groups and do a call for action," a highly placed intelligence source told CNN.

After all this, you need to ask my point?

The Mueller investigation, which started as the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and is now known as the investigation into Russian meddling, is essentially an investigation into stuff known and ignored by the Obama administration and an attempt to cast it as a conspiracy. Do we really need to see how many of Trump's people we can trip up or ensnare to investigate something we have known for years? Yes, Russians meddled. No, they did not need an invitation.

Witch hunt. Witch hunts always find witches. See Salem and the HUAC. But that does not mean witches exist.

(03-27-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Russian meddling

If Mueller truly is investigating Russian Meddling (HA!) he could start with this article.

What's your point?

Enough articles have come out that have fairly well established that the Obama admin, for a number of reasons, acted too little and too late on this issue. That, due to both the political climate and the inability to grasp the magnitude of what was about to happen or was going on, they did not address the problem head on until Obama was on his way out.

But this is a complex problem, and one without a really obvious solution (as someone quoted in the article points out).

Quote:"I would have loved to have had more support for that from all across government, not just from the State Department but from the intelligence and defense communities as well," said Rick Stengel, the State Department's undersecretary of state for public affairs under Obama.

"But even today, I'm not sure that there is an effective way of countering, much less thwarting, disinformation and propaganda. And if there is, I haven't heard of it," he said.

Another person who served on the NSC at the time said she was not convinced that Bruen's proposed plan on its own would have thwarted Internet Research Agency activity aimed at the US.

"What we needed, and still don't have, is an analytic cell that sees the full scope of Russian activity. Our inability to put the full picture together in real time was a major part of why this was missed," said the person, who did not want to speak publicly so as to not jeopardize her current position at a nongovernmental organization.

But this article does help explain the situation in ways we haven't really seen. Like how the intelligence agency decided to focus more on ISIS and their online presence/spread. But still, it seems like a lot of it comes down to a miscalculation by the Obama team and the intelligence community.

Quote:"We fully recognized Russians were using social media. We believed their use of it was largely based on trolls and probing acts to get information. At that point, we didn't really see it as a calculated and willful effort to use social media to communicate with groups and do a call for action," a highly placed intelligence source told CNN.

After all this, you need to ask my point?

The Mueller investigation, which started as the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and is now known as the investigation into Russian meddling, is essentially an investigation into stuff known and ignored by the Obama administration and an attempt to cast it as a conspiracy. Do we really need to see how many of Trump's people we can trip up or ensnare to investigate something we have known for years? Yes, Russians meddled. No, they did not need an invitation.

Witch hunt. Witch hunts always find witches. See Salem and the HUAC. But that does not mean witches exist.

The Mueller investigation has resulted in charges to multiple Russians for their role in this (although they likely won't ever have to face those charges for obvious reasons). By the end of the investigation, we'll be able to judge just how much of a "witch hunt" it really was based on the charges levied.

Perhaps we'll see charges levied on US citizens that are directly connected to the meddling efforts. If we do, would it still be a witch hunt?

(03-27-2018 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Russian meddling

If Mueller truly is investigating Russian Meddling (HA!) he could start with this article.

What's your point?

Enough articles have come out that have fairly well established that the Obama admin, for a number of reasons, acted too little and too late on this issue. That, due to both the political climate and the inability to grasp the magnitude of what was about to happen or was going on, they did not address the problem head on until Obama was on his way out.

But this is a complex problem, and one without a really obvious solution (as someone quoted in the article points out).

Quote:"I would have loved to have had more support for that from all across government, not just from the State Department but from the intelligence and defense communities as well," said Rick Stengel, the State Department's undersecretary of state for public affairs under Obama.

"But even today, I'm not sure that there is an effective way of countering, much less thwarting, disinformation and propaganda. And if there is, I haven't heard of it," he said.

Another person who served on the NSC at the time said she was not convinced that Bruen's proposed plan on its own would have thwarted Internet Research Agency activity aimed at the US.

"What we needed, and still don't have, is an analytic cell that sees the full scope of Russian activity. Our inability to put the full picture together in real time was a major part of why this was missed," said the person, who did not want to speak publicly so as to not jeopardize her current position at a nongovernmental organization.

But this article does help explain the situation in ways we haven't really seen. Like how the intelligence agency decided to focus more on ISIS and their online presence/spread. But still, it seems like a lot of it comes down to a miscalculation by the Obama team and the intelligence community.

Quote:"We fully recognized Russians were using social media. We believed their use of it was largely based on trolls and probing acts to get information. At that point, we didn't really see it as a calculated and willful effort to use social media to communicate with groups and do a call for action," a highly placed intelligence source told CNN.

After all this, you need to ask my point?

The Mueller investigation, which started as the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and is now known as the investigation into Russian meddling, is essentially an investigation into stuff known and ignored by the Obama administration and an attempt to cast it as a conspiracy. Do we really need to see how many of Trump's people we can trip up or ensnare to investigate something we have known for years? Yes, Russians meddled. No, they did not need an invitation.

Witch hunt. Witch hunts always find witches. See Salem and the HUAC. But that does not mean witches exist.

The Mueller investigation has resulted in charges to multiple Russians for their role in this (although they likely won't ever have to face those charges for obvious reasons). By the end of the investigation, we'll be able to judge just how much of a "witch hunt" it really was based on the charges levied.

Perhaps we'll see charges levied on US citizens that are directly connected to the meddling efforts. If we do, would it still be a witch hunt?

Not if those Americans were part of the Trump campaign and the charges were collusion and/or conspiracy to collude, based on a quid pro quo agreement between Trump/the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin, and then the charges were proven in a court of law.

Otherwise, yes.

As a percentage, what is your expectation of seeing such charges levied? 80%, 50%? For me, <0.1%.

I have always said, this witch hunt would result in no collusion, but would result in some people associated with Trump indicted for minor crimes having no relation to the object of the hunt. So far, bingo.

If you don't want to put a specific number on it, just give me a range.

You cant make this **** up, even if you wanted to ---

California suing Trump over asking question on citizenship in census

Quote:Democrats have criticized the administration’s announcement, saying the inclusion of such a question amounts to an effort to intimidate immigrant communities and siphon money and electoral power away from them.

In a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece published Monday, Becerra and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla wrote that the inclusion of a citizenship question would be "illegal" and "an extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to hijack the 2020 census for political purposes."

"California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census," they wrote. "An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college.)"

But the kicker is that only illegal immigrants would lose money (which they aren’t entitled to) and electoral power (ditto).

(03-27-2018 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You cant make this **** up, even if you wanted to ---

California suing Trump over asking question on citizenship in census

Quote:Democrats have criticized the administration’s announcement, saying the inclusion of such a question amounts to an effort to intimidate immigrant communities and siphon money and electoral power away from them.

In a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece published Monday, Becerra and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla wrote that the inclusion of a citizenship question would be "illegal" and "an extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to hijack the 2020 census for political purposes."

"California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census," they wrote. "An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college.)"

But the kicker is that only illegal immigrants would lose money (which they aren’t entitled to) and electoral power (ditto).

Like many on the right, including me, have said all along, the whole imigration fracas is all about Democrats getting votes or seats because of illegals.

I heard yesterday that asking about citizenship could threaten up to 4 or 5 seats in California. No wonder they are fighting.

Now if California loses those 4 or 5 seats, I wonder who gains? Texas certainly is growing, but we have our own set of illegals here. Who has the fewest illegals? Maybe Tennessee, or Idaho?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/does-c...ar-BBKO4ay

Love the way the left lumps all immigrants, legal and illegal, under one banner. One of my cousins is married to a legal Mexican immigrant. I cannot conceive of them refusing to answer the census questions.

OTOH, lots of the illegals will not even answer the door for a stranger and will view any visitor from the government suspiciously, even without hearing the questions. I doubt there will be very many more that will refuse to respond than there already are.

(03-28-2018 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard yesterday that asking about citizenship could threaten up to 4 or 5 seats in California. No wonder they are fighting.

Now if California loses those 4 or 5 seats, I wonder who gains? Texas certainly is growing, but we have our own set of illegals here. Who has the fewest illegals? Maybe Tennessee, or Idaho?

These are the states with the fastest growing immigrant populations, though not in absolute numbers or legal vs. illegal.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/state...?a=viewall

"*This includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, people in the country on work or student visas, refugees and asylees, and those in country without legal status."

As I said, the left wants to put all immigrants under one umbrella as though there are no differences in the way they would respond.

My cousin's husband is a lawful permanent resident, and has been for the 40 or so years of their marriage.

I can see that some illegals would decline to answer, but far, far more will just dodge the census taker regardless of the questions to be asked. How many illegals does anybody think will be comfortable with a government representative asking them questions until THAT one comes up?