Years ago, James Carville said of the Paula Jones suit against Clinton, “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” At the time I thought it was funny, now I think it’s offensive and the antithesis of what liberals should say and think about lower-income Americans who live in mobile homes. The central point, however, that many of the people involved in this suit were being paid off by wealth wingers, is probably correct.
Here’s one thing that’s certainly true though: you put billions of rubles in front of grifters, you never know what you’ll get them to do. It looks like Manafort got upwards of $20 million from Putin cronies in total. Kushner’s family might have made half a billion in some shady deal with Russian banks. That’s real money. You know lots of people around Trump had their hands out. Russia would be willing to pay tens of billions of dollars to get sanctions lifted. You think there aren’t half a dozen people around Trump, including probably Trump himself, who are scheming for a way to get their cut?
That’s why even if there’s no collusion with the Wikileaks hacks (which is possible) and if Louise Mensch’s fever dreams are all wrong (which is likely), there’s plenty of nefarious doings here that the Republicans in Congress will want to cover up. So the cover ups will go on and on.
germy
But there are risks. Have you seen this?
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-epidemic-of-russia-scandal-deaths.html
Bathtubs and stuff.
Cermet
Being putin’s poodle provides oodles of rubles to flow – like the spice …
germy
I said this downstairs and I’ll say it again:
Sometimes when I see Trump turn on the fake charm I think this would have been a perfect script for a W.C. Fields movie. Something from the Universal Pictures years, early 1940s. He plays a grifter who jumps into a presidential race for publicity and then wins. He seats himself at his desk and barks orders at his “staff” and appoints his beloved daughter the office next to his.
Grady Sutton plays his assistant (“President Whipsnade, the reporters won’t leave me alone!”) and Franklin Pangborn plays a Democratic senator who keeps sniffing around his russian connections.
D58826
And maybe some of those critters have things in their past that Putin knows but would prefer no one else know.
Barbara
And to think they got Devin Nunes for only $50K.
Mnemosyne
@Barbara:
I think there are going to be a lot of Republicans who realize too late that they sold out for way too little.
Roger Moore
@Barbara:
You don’t stay a billionaire by overpaying.
Humboldtblue
I wish I liked vodka.
Mnemosyne
@Humboldtblue:
I had a Pineapple Mule the other night — pineapple-infused vodka and ginger beer. It was really good.
zhena gogolia
@germy:
I don’t think that’s a role for Franklin Pangborn. William Demarest, maybe.
“Definitely the same Russian ambassador!”
zhena gogolia
@germy:
I’m making it a Preston Sturges flick.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
I am completely on the fence with Louise Mensch. I think her plane tail intel to solidify timelines is really hard evidence. People make up conspiracy theories with far less than that. She also believes that Comey will be the hero in all this. Maybe I just want to believe her way more than I actually do believe her, but, she’s not a loon.
germy
@Mnemosyne: My wife is a ginger enthusiast. Buys raw ginger, makes tea, uses it for stir fries, etc. She made ginger wine a few months ago; fermented it. I was skeptical but it was crisp, refreshing and had a surprising kick.
Hunter Gathers
Didn’t realize that ‘winning’ translates to ‘dime store punk bitch’ in Russian.
D58826
Sen. Burr/Warner are scheduled to hold a joint news conference tomorrow on the Russian investigation. Are they conducting a real investigation or are the Goopers just better at hiding the slow walk/cover up in the Senate?
Doug!
@germy:
I tried making a ginger vodka once. It wasn’t that good. The rhubarb vodka I made was great though.
germy
@zhena gogolia:
That works, as well.
I saw it as a Universal Pictures W.C. Fields vehicle, or an early 1930s Paramount Pictures screwball comedy. Maybe something like “Million Dollar Legs” where the president gets elected by arm wrestling.
germy
@Doug!: At least you know what you’re getting when you ferment your own.
No mystery ingredients.
The Moar You Know
HAW HAW HAW
What you’ll find is desperate people, Carville, you fucking asshole.
Mnemosyne
@zhena gogolia:
It’s not too far off from The Great McGinty, except that McGinty grows a conscience.
germy
@zhena gogolia:
Demarest would be perfect in the Sturges version. Keeps bugging the “president” about the russsian connections. Who would play the Russian? Monty Woolley?
JPL
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: I have little faith in Comey, and I think he’s been compromised.
hovercraft
@D58826:
Re-posting from downstairs. There’s nothing to see here folks, just move along.
FAKE NEWS ! FAKE NEWS !!
Spicer: Media Would See Conspiracy If Trump Ate ‘Russian Salad Dressing’
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the press would see “a Russian connection” if President Donald Trump “puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight.”
“How does this administration try to revamp its image, two and a half months in?” American Urban Radio Networks reporter April Ryan asked Spicer during his daily briefing.
She cited a report by the Washington Post that the Trump administration attempted to block former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates from testifying in a House Intelligence Committee open hearing. The White House on Tuesday denied that it had attempted to block her testimony.
“You’ve got the Yates story today, you’ve got other things going on, you’ve got Russia, you’ve got wiretapping,” Ryan said.
“No, we don’t have that,” Spicer replied.
“You have investigations on Capitol Hill,” Ryan began.
“No, no, I get it. But you keep — I’ve said it from the day that I got here until whatever, that there is no connection. You’ve got Russia,” Spicer interrupted. “If the President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight somehow that’s a Russian connection.”
He accused Ryan of having an “agenda.”
“Oh, hold on. At some point report the facts,” Spicer said. “The facts are that every single person who has been briefed on this subject has come away with the same conclusion, Republican, Democrat, so I’m sorry that that disgusts you. You’re shaking your head.”
He said that “every single person” who has been briefed on the “situation with Russia” has reached the same conclusion, though he did not specify what that might be.
“At some point, April, you’re going to have to take no for an answer with respect to whether or not there is collusion,” Spicer said.
Ryan pointed out that her question was about how Trump’s administration plans to “change the perception” resulting from those investigations and reports.
Spicer replied: “We’re going to keep doing everything we’re doing.”
D58826
My bolds. With democratic friends like these who needs GOOPER enemies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-give-trump-the-keys-to-war-with-iran_us_58da80bde4b0dbf14d3f92f6?
The Moar You Know
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: You’ve just taken the first step to admitting that you were conned. Most can’t even get that far.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
I think Mensch is a self promoting crackpot.
rikyrah
Did the White House try to block the former A.G. from testifying?
03/28/17 01:04 PM
By Steve Benen
In the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency – which is to say, just a couple of months ago – Sally Yates was the administration’s choice to serve as the acting U.S. Attorney General, though that did not last. Ten days into her tenure, Trump fired Yates after she directed the Justice Department not to defend the president’s Muslim ban, which she considered unconstitutional.
All of this unfolded on Jan. 30. Four days earlier, however, Yates notified the White House that the Justice Department had evidence that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn lied about his post-election talks with Vladimir Putin’s government and may be vulnerable to a Russian blackmail campaign.
Yates is now eager to talk to congressional investigators about those developments. The Washington Post reports that the White House has “sought to block” that testimony.
.
Villago Delenda Est
@Barbara: It’s not so much that they are whores, it’s that they are purchasable for so little.
jacy
@Mnemosyne:
That sounds yummy! Shame it’s still too early in the day here to drink….
Yutsano
@Doug!: Might try a mix of ginger and galangal. Or making sure the ginger is muddled.
Temporarily Max McGee (Until Death!)
@germy:
Akim Tamiroff, of course!
Villago Delenda Est
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: There’s a self promoting crackpot on the Internet?
I’m shocked! Shocked!
The Moar You Know
@hovercraft: translation: BITCH, DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO FILL A TRUCK WITH A HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS? IT’S NOT LIKE GOING TO THE ATM!
trollhattan
@Barbara:
Hard out there for a pimp.
Growing up in Tulare doesn’t necessarily prepare one for life outside the Valley, but Nunes has managed to make himself a Koch whore as well as evidently a Putin puppet (no puppet, no puppet!…) I suspect he’s just been lucky, going back to being drafted by GWB back in the day.
Mnemosyne
@rikyrah:
So this is my question for the lawyers in the group — is privilege always absolute, or are there exceptions? I know that, say, doctor/patient privilege is a big thing, but doctors are also mandatory reporters, so if a patient says they’re being abused, the doctor is required by law to report it even though it would be breaking doctor/patient privilege.
So is the White House really allowed to say that evidence of their crimes is protected by attorney/client privilege?
dedc79
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
Same here. Let’s run all this Russia stuff to ground, by all means. But Mensch is a nutjob who is only getting attention here because (1) she has a british accent and (2) she’s telling people what they want to hear.
Humboldtblue
@Mnemosyne:
A local distiller just introduced their cannabis-infused vodka.
I also bought some high end stuff for a friend a few months ago, she said it was the best she had ever had. I may not drink liquor (cheap beer over here) but I can pick it out for my friends.
germy
@Temporarily Max McGee (Until Death!):
Perfect.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne: Was she counsel to the President, formally? If I ask Omnes, say, a legal question, here on this here site (“Was it a bad thing to shoot at that dipshit who cut me off this morning?”), and he says “I am a lawyer, but, I really can’t answer that here because it will become a privileged communication that we’re sharing with the entire planet”, is the fact that we had the exchange itself a lawyer-client communication? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, like Susan Dey, I only play one on the Internet on alternate Tuesdays.
D58826
Just a thought here and remembering the Iran-Contra hearings. and definitely not a lawyer. Also remembering the Watergate hearings. People like Manafort/Stone /Kushner seem to be really really anxious to testify in public. Now combine softball questions from the GOOPERS and an inadequate investigative base on the part of the D’s and these folks are setting up their 5th amendment self incrimination defense for down the road. The Irvin/Baker Watergate hearings started with the little fish and a solid investigation and then worked their way up to the big fish. They flipped the little guys and used that to pressure the next level up. On the other hand during the Iran-Contra hearings Ollie (with his non-potted plant lawyer) was more than happy to drop all kinds of little nuggets when he testified. And low and behold his criminal conviction was reversed because SCOTUS held that any subsequent investigation/trial could not guarantee that it wasn’t tainted by the Congressional testimony.
Humboldtblue
@germy:
Speaking of fermentation, that process makes up one of four episodes in Michael Pollan’s Netflix series, Cooked.
It’s wonderful and he does a great job at bringing us back to our roots when it comes to food and more importantly, cooking. I certainly identified with the barbecue parts — put on the meat and let it cook while you drink beer and talk story — and the episodes on bread and fermentation were brilliant (at least for me, remember, I am not an educated man so I am easily amused and amazed).
TenguPhule
@Barbara:
That’s only what he reported.
Again, Swiss Bank accounts, dirty Russian money in a safe, blood diamonds in his wife’s name.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Lurking Canadian
@hovercraft: This is why I’m afraid they’re going to skate. There’s already enough to sink any normal administration, but they just keep lying and lying. No matter what comes to light, they can keep saying “conspiracy theory!” “circumstantial evidence!” “witch hunt!” and so on.
Try to think of what a smoking gun would be in this case. We already know Trump’s people ordered the change to the Rep platform on Ukraine. We already know Trump’s people have received oodles of Russian money. And yet they cry “no evidence!” “coincidence!” etc etc
Unless there’s a signed receipt somewhere that says “I, DJ Trump, hereby promise to turn over the reins of th US government to Vladimir Putin in exchange for $10B”, they’ll just brazen in out. And even if that receipt does show up, they’ll start braying about the kerning.
WereBear
@Mnemosyne: Was it in a copper mug? ‘Cause that’s the classic form.
TenguPhule
@Mnemosyne:
IANAL, but I have to deal with courts on occasion. There are exceptions. Yates lawyer referred to one, the “If you talk about it in public, its no longer privileged”. Since the whole point of the privilege is that it was only discussed in private between the two bound parties.
WereBear
Seen online:
LAO
@Mnemosyne: Technically, it’s not a “presidential” privilege but an “executive” privilege. Also, Yates is bound by certain DOJ rules.
It’s not fair to phrase this as you did. Yates plans to testify about conversations she had concerning Michael Flynn and the Russian Interference Investigation — (That’s not criminal). And she is going to testify on a waiver theory — because the White House and it’s defenders have already disclosed their version of these conversations. So they have waived the privilege.
Villago Delenda Est
@D58826: Ollie North set the new standard for sleaziness, not only by wearing his uniform, the dishonorable puke, but knowing the camera angle would enhance the impression for the schmucks out there in his favor. Fucking utter disgrace to the uniform he disgraced in that little bit of kabuki.
Mnemosyne
@WereBear:
It was. With two little pieces of fresh pineapple as the garnish.
Villago Delenda Est
@LAO: And you be law-talking type person, too!
LAO
@TenguPhule: You are exactly right. Any privilege can be waived by the Holder of the Privilege — ie. not the lawyer.
LAO
@Villago Delenda Est: I am but I’m not as smart as the others. I’m just a simple criminal defense attorney.
Humboldtblue
From our Congressman, Jared Huffman, a stalwart environmentalist and damn smart cookie.
And from the Guv —
Jerry BrownVerified account @JerryBrownGov 40s40 seconds ago Gutting #CPP is a colossal mistake and defies science itself. Erasing climate change may take place in Donald Trump’s mind, but nowhere else
efgoldman
@germy:
More like a Donald Westlake novel, I think, especially Nunes.
Villago Delenda Est
@WereBear: Therefore, a comic book super villain is more ethical than Donald.
Villago Delenda Est
@LAO: Yet you know way more than moi, which is what is important. What we’re talking about here is well within your wheelhouse, I suspect.
Elim Garak: “I’m nothing more than what I appear to be, a simple tailor who happens to have an intimate knowledge of Cardassian encryption protocols”
max
Years ago, James Carville said of the Paula Jones suit against Clinton, “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” At the time I thought it was funny, now I think it’s offensive and the antithesis of what liberals should say and think about lower-income Americans who live in mobile homes.
Have you ever seen ordinary people (some of the petit bourgeois!) when dollar bills start raining from the sky? They freak out and grab everything they can. Most people have very little dignity when it comes to money and the hard up are not going to be the exception. (And in fact, the rich are not much of an exception to this either.)
At any rate, he was insulting Flowers there, and that wasn’t funny because let’s face it: she was basically telling a rough version truth as far as I could tell. Bill liked himself some fucking around.
The central point, however, that many of the people involved in this suit were being paid off by wealth wingers, is probably correct.
That people are more aghast at Bill Clinton fucking around on his wife (which a majority of people do, according to surveys) is less disgusting than rich wingers spending money like water to derail things like health care for poor people is the actually disgusting thing there.
Here’s one thing that’s certainly true though: you put billions of rubles in front of grifters, you never know what you’ll get them to do.
One only needs to follow the career of on Marco Rubio to see what ‘pathetic toadying’ looks like.
You think there aren’t half a dozen people around Trump, including probably Trump himself, who are scheming for a way to get their cut?
Meh. It seems obvious now that Trump is up to his eyeballs in Russian financing, and the Russians, seeing Hillary Clinton as a threat to their government made him an offer.
And he took it, because it’s fucking Donald Trump, mobbed up made man. Can you imagine Donald Trump turning down such an offer?
That’s why even if there’s no collusion with the Wikileaks hacks (which is possible) and if Louise Mensch’s fever dreams are all wrong (which is likely), there’s plenty of nefarious doings here that the Republicans in Congress will want to cover up. So the cover ups will go on and on.
On the other hand, Louise Mensch, isn’t much of one, and it would be unwise to trust her farther than you can throw her. She comes from the same cesspool Trump emerged from.
max
[‘Likewise with most of those other neo-con fucks, with the apparently honorable exception of Jennifer Rubin.’]
D58826
@Villago Delenda Est: Well he was that and after he skated on the criminal charges he joined the wingnut welfare circuit with both hands out. Made himself a millionaire. At least he wasn’t able to buy a Senate seat.
hovercraft
This seems like something that will have to be adjudicated before a judge.
By Paula Reid CBS News March 28, 2017, 1:01 PM
Former acting AG Sally Yates asked DOJ if she could testify at Russia hearing
Last Updated Mar 28, 2017 2:53 PM EDT
CBS News has obtained a March 24th letter from the Justice Department to Sally Yates that says that DOJ lacks the authority to give Yates permission to testify before Congress about links between Russian officials and Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
Yates had informed the Justice Department that she had intended to testify about the non-classified information related to her concerns “about the conduct of a senior official,” thought to be then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
In its letter to her attorney, DOJ says that most of her testimony would “likely [be] covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege.” Deputy Associate Attorney General Scott Schools, who wrote the letter, goes on to say, “The President owns those privileges,” so therefore, she “needs to consult with the White House” if she wants to testify. The Washington Post first reported the correspondence between Yates’ attorney and the Justice Department in a story with a headline reading, “Trump Administration sought to block Sally Yates from testifying to Congress on Russia.
“The Washington Post story is entirely false. The White House has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement.
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington June 28, 2016.
She did consult the White House, a source close to Yates said, but she didn’t receive a response before she learned the hearing had been canceled. Yates disagrees with DOJ’s claim that her conversations with the White House would be protected by Presidential Communications Privilege. She had planned to testify about things the White House had publicly discussed at length and therefore, she believed any alleged privilege had been waived. The source said her testimony would have contradicted statements by the White House about these events.
During the White House briefing, Spicer expanded on the White House response, confirming that Yates’ lawyer had written to the White House for permission to testify. He said that a line in that letter said that if the White House didn’t respond before the hearing date, Yates would interpret the administration’s silence as approval. “We didn’t respond — we encouraged them to go ahead,” Spicer said.
“I hope she testifies. I look forward to it,” Spicer declared. ……..
Top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement that that “we do not know” whether the White House’s “desire to avoid a public claim of executive privilege” played a role in keeping her from “providing the full truth on what happened.”
The committee was originally to have met Tuesday to hear from Yates, former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, but the hearing was canceled by Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.
Schiff’s statement also went on to call for a new date for the hearing.
“[W]e would urge that the open hearing be rescheduled without further delay and that Ms. Yates be permitted to testify freely and openly so that the public may understand, among other matters, when the President was informed that his national security advisor had misled the Vice President and through him, the country,” he wrote, “and why the President waited as long as he did to fire Mr. Flynn.”
? Martin
Don’t underestimate the desperation the GOP had for defeating Clinton. Once you give up all pretense of governance and go for a full-bore power play, everyone becomes a potential ally (see Iran-Contra). I don’t for a moment think that the broader GOP, in search of campaign dollars and dirt, weren’t willing to side with the Russians on any number of things.
different-church-lady
I’m so old I can remember when republicans were insisting a presidential candidate having lots of income from dubious sources meant that candidate must be a criminal.
sharl
In an alternate universe where there exists a clever foreign policy team under a President Hillary Clinton, a promise could be made to recover as much of these ill-gotten assets as possible – many of them originating (as I understand it) from Russian oligarchs plundering the government of the collapsing Soviet Union – and hold the assets in escrow until a trustworthy and relatively non-corrupt government is in charge in Moscow. That might send an encouraging message to the Russian kids who were out protesting corruption this past weekend, while giving Putin a bit of heartburn.
But, y’know, just wishful thinking about an alternate universe…
efgoldman
@Lurking Canadian:
They’ll try for sure.
Tricksie Dicksie Nixie tried too, and that was actual briefcases full of cash, with no digital trail to follow.
Reminder (for the nth time) that it was over two years between the Watergate break in and Tricksie boarding the helicopter.
Patience, Grasshopper.
hovercraft
@Lurking Canadian:
Bush the younger lied about the disaster in Iraq, ours reasons for being there and what a clusterfuck it became, but eventually it caught up to him. Twitler is already in trouble barely two months into his presidency. So I doubt that their obfuscation and decoys will work. After 16 years of the “War on Terror” I doubt even that has the potency it once had. It may not be as fast as we want, but he can’t bullshit his way through four years of this. He may stay in office because republicans are afraid to impeach him, but he will go down and his enablers right along with him. And thes time none of the “we have to move on, no looking back”, shit, we need to investigate the shit out of him and his fellow kleptocrats.
The Moar You Know
@max: Would not have picked her as “honorable” but she is. Don’t like her politics or beliefs or anything else about her, but when push came to shove she didn’t throw her beliefs on the bonfire – and she’s not staying quiet either. Unlike just about every other so-called “conservative” in this whole damned country.
Ruviana
@Doug!: Somewhere Erik Loomis is weeping….
Timurid
@Lurking Canadian:
The problem is that Trump is backed by two powerful groups that consider him to be indispensable:
1. His base voters.
2. Elites who want to move in a more authoritarian direction and want a King, not a President (Trump is the only one who volunteered for that job).
In normal circumstances, what really matters to Republicans is that a Republican is in charge. If a scandal escalates too far, the President is expendable. You can always find another Republican to replace him. But in this case, it can’t be just any Republican. It has to be this Republican. Many members of the party are now Trumpists, not true Republicans. More than enough to cripple any elected Republican who crosses them by starving them of funding, supporting a primary opponent or staying home in the general. So, yes, they will brazen it out as long as they can…
EdTheRed
RZA: Let me ask you a question Mr. Kushner…
Do you know a Paul Manfort?
Kushner: I know no such person
RZA: Paul Manafort from Connecticut? Paul Manafort?
Kushner: I don’t know who you’re talking about
RZA: I think you do know him cause your f*ckin friend Paul is down at the Hoover Building right now singing his f*ckin ass like a f*ckin bird…
zhena gogolia
@germy:
There has to be a role for Warren William in there somewhere.
trollhattan
@Humboldtblue:
This was sent to EPA employees from Chief of Staff and former CoS to Snowball Inhofe, Ryan Jackson.
Never before have “serve” and “inclusive” seemed so threatening. (Okay, “To Serve Man”)
LAO
@hovercraft:
This is particularly amusing. Maybe, if Spicey or the administration had an ounce of credibility, someone might actually believe this to be true.
Aleta
@hovercraft: Spicer wouldn’t admit to anything wrong if Trump poured Russian salad dressing on his head tonight.
efgoldman
@LAO:
It appears, without reading more detail, that Pumpkin Pustule and the gang are claiming that all DOJ attorneys, by definition, are the president’s lawyers, so executive privilege applies.
Seems to me we had this out in the Watergate investigations; it did not go well for the president.
LAO
Fucking Gov. Cuomo. There is never a political consequence to f*cking the poor.
@efgoldman: You sir, are correct.
Mnemosyne
@LAO:
I guess that’s where I’m confused by the story — the White House seems to be claiming that they have not waived their privilege and Yates shouldn’t be allowed to testify.
TenguPhule
@Villago Delenda Est: I still don’t understand why North is still alive. You’d figure someone at the CIA would have quietly removed him by now.
cain
@Humboldtblue:
I am making pani puri for some friends on Thursday.. since it is a cocktail hour, I was planning on replacing the ‘pani’ (water) with some vodka.. you’ll never taste it!
That said, gin is my go to for cocktails anyways. I only use vodka for screwdrivers.
TenguPhule
@Mnemosyne: The Whitehouse is also claiming that Trump running for office and Trump in office are legally two different people.
Simply dismiss all of their claims as lies and move on.
WereBear
@Mnemosyne: Tres awesome!
LAO
@Mnemosyne: Fair enough. Here’s the rub though — because the parties disagree, the executive branch will have to go to court and have a judge declare that (1) the privilege is valid and (2) that it has not be waived. It will be hard for the White House to maintain its’ current stance — we aren’t blocking Yates from testifying — while simultaneously running to the courts.
TenguPhule
@different-church-lady: You mean 2016?
Steve in the ATL
@LAO:
On a related note, do you know anyone in Atlanta who could handle an appeal of a murder conviction? I know lots of lawyers here, but none in that world.
Uh, asking for a friend, of course….
LAO
@Steve in the ATL: No. Just Florida, if that’s close enough.
efgoldman
@Timurid:
Until the first actual indictment hits the fan.
hovercraft
@trollhattan:
As I posted downstairs it’s surreal:
They are not hiding this shit.
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
@germy:
A week ago Sunday, wife was demanding a morning cocktail that was “out of the box”.
What I came up with was awesome – one full measure of Hendrick’s gin, a half measure of Cointreau, Peychaud bitters and Bundaberg ginger beer (super peppery). Served it over hand crushed ice (wood mallet and a Lewis bag), and garnished it with a blood orange slice.
Spanky
Contradicts himself in the same sentence there at the end of the quote, he does.
TenguPhule
@efgoldman: Even then, they’ll probably just go all in for full Fascism. Its not like there’s any futher downsides for them, You can only execute them once for Treason, after all.
WereBear
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes: Nice!
Zach
“Russia would be willing to pay tens of billions of dollars to get sanctions lifted.”
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much Trump’s meager support on the right depends on “Trump boom” in the stock market and how it would only take an order of magnitude or so more than the amount you’re talking about to manipulate the market up significantly on this time scale…
trollhattan
@hovercraft:
“Will no one rid us of these pesky wild creatures, these mountains and meadows, these poor people?”
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
@WereBear:
It was really refreshing.
Spanky
Looks like the Scots mean it this time …
different-church-lady
@TenguPhule: Hell, I might even mean yesterday, depending on which wingnut pops up on which non-political blog on any given day.
randy khan
The President has declined the honor of throwing out the first pitch at Nationals Park on Monday. Scheduling conflicts, they say. Hmm.
rikyrah
Yates Was Warned. Nevertheless, She Persisted
by Nancy LeTourneau March 28, 2017 2:40 PM
The words that sparked the resistance movement to rally in support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren when McConnell tried to silence her now apply to Sally Yates. If you remember, she is the woman who served as the Deputy Attorney General in the Obama administration and was initially asked to stay on as the Acting Attorney General for Trump until he fired her for refusing to defend his travel ban.
Prior to her firing, she warned the White House that the statements made by Michael Flynn about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador were not true and could potentially be used as blackmail against him, a warning that the White House chose to ignore until the information became public and Flynn was fired.
Yates was planning to testify about her knowledge of some of these events to the House Intelligence Committee that is currently chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes. But apparently the White House has been attempting to stop her from doing so.
……………………….
One of the cliches to emerge from the Watergate scandal was, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.” With the recent activities of Rep. Nunes and now this, it is increasingly looking like the White House is engaged in a cover-up. Regardless of what evidence is available for the probe into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, they are sure acting like they have something to hide.
We don’t know how important Yates’ testimony will be. But obviously she is determined to persist, even after being warned. So if or when she is able to testify in an open hearing, the White House just ensured that it will be considered yuuuuuge.
different-church-lady
@rikyrah:
Feeling a bit cocky there, eh Nancy?
hovercraft
Aww, poor, poor, baby, this whole presidenting thing is really hard.
I missed this, what with all the other crap going on with him.
Trump Argues He’s Immune From Accuser’s Defamation Suit As POTUS
A lawyer for President Donald Trump on Monday signaled that he will seek to dismiss a lawsuit filed against Trump in New York, arguing that the President is immune to lawsuits filed against him in state court.
Trump is looking to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed in New York state Supreme Court by Summer Zervos, a past contestant on Trump’s reality television show, “The Apprentice.” Zervos filed the lawsuit in January, after Trump denied her allegations that he kissed and groped her inappropriately in 2007 at a hotel in Los Angeles.
In a filing submitted on Monday, Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, argued that “the United States Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause contained therein, immunizes the President from being sued in state court while in office.” He noted that in Clinton v. Jones, which established that Presidents are not immune from federal lawsuits over actions they took before taking office, the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide whether the President could be sued in state court.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its decision that it was not ruling on presidential immunity for lawsuits filed in state courts, according to Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.
Kasowitz asked the state Supreme Court to decide whether Trump has immunity from the lawsuit before otherwise proceeding with the case. He wrote that “allowing litigation on the merits to proceed prior to resolution of this crucial and threshold constitutional issue would unduly burden the President and would defeat the purpose of Presidential immunity,” and stated that Clinton v. Jones established that courts should address the issue of immunity before taking other actions in such a case.
He wrote that Trump intends to file a motion to either dismiss the case or postpone it until after his presidency.
Sherry told TPM in an email that she suspects the New York state Supreme Court may not dismiss the case on immunity grounds.
“My best guess is that the NY state court will not dismiss on immunity grounds, and the question will eventually end up at the US Supreme Court,” Sherry wrote.
But Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told TPM that there’s a chance a court could dismiss the case because it could occupy a lot of the President’s time.
“In Jones, the Court suggested that a civil suit would not occupy too much of the president’s time. Yet Clinton v Jones led directly to Clinton’s impeachment. Given that history, one might predict the Court would be reluctant to allow more civil suits to go forward during Trump’s term in office,” Winkler wrote in an email.
rikyrah
The Real Killer of Trumpcare Was Conservatives’ Self-Deception
by Steven Waldman March 28, 2017 1:30 PM
As Republicans focus on whom to blame for the collapse of Trumpcare, they have ignored the most important culprit: self-deception.
For seven years, they have run a campaign against Obamacare that was full of exaggeration and distortions. Over time, they and their voters came to believe all sorts of things that weren’t true – and those false assumptions ended up crippling their ability to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Let’s go through them:
Obamacare was one of the worst things ever to happen. As soon as Barack Obama proposed the Affordable Care Act, we saw an arms race of hyperbole. It was insufficient to oppose it; one had to do so in a truly memorable way. So we ended up with comments like:
“Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” (Ben Carson)
“This is the end of prosperity in America forever.” (Glenn Beck)
“[Obamacare] will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy.” (John Boehner)
………………………
These sentiments have bombarded conservative voters for roughly 2,500 straight days. In this context, the stubbornly negative reaction from the Freedom Caucus was totally logical and predictable. When a law is worse than slavery, you really ought to just repeal it. The fact that Paul Ryan accepted a lot of the structure of the ACA made it even worse.
The Freedom Caucus rebellion wasn’t caused by disloyalty or disunity; it was caused by seven years of hyperbolic rhetoric.
Premiums are skyrocketing because of Obamacare and so a Republican plan would lower premiums. Republicans walked into a trap of their own setting: if Obamacare was what was causing premiums to rise, then their plans can and should make premiums go down. Or as Donald Trump put it: Rates will “go down, down, down.”
trollhattan
@Spanky:
Yeah, agree. I think they’re (rightfully) feeling betrayed after voting to stay in the Union only to then be yanked out of the EU–they voted strongly for remain. They’re being warned by the English of economic disaster but one wonders how accurate that may prove to be.
In the meantime I could listen to their PM all day. Lurve her accent.
Chris
@TenguPhule:
I seriously doubt if the people at CIA are anywhere near that dramatic. And if they were… these people would probably be on North’s side anyway.
Yarrow
@TenguPhule:
Trump is both in office AND running for 2020 right now. He can’t claim that running for office is somehow separate from being in office since he signed the paperwork to run for 2020 immediately after taking the oath.
Mnemosyne
@LAO:
My more general question would be, is there some kind of whistleblower exception to attorney/client privilege where a DOJ lawyer would be able to give evidence to a prosecutor if they know of an actual indictable crime? I know they can’t be forced to testify because of that privilege, but can privilege be used to force them to sit on evidence of an actual crime?
different-church-lady
@rikyrah: “Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” (Ben Carson)
“Wait, slavery is a bad thing?” (Trump voters)
Immanentize
@LAO: What LAO says. I cited one DOJ restriction in the thread below.
The Executive privilege is a thorny area — invoked more often that it really should apply, but there really is no way to beat an invocation if the witness does not want to testify (Congress has to subpoena, and then if the witness odes not testify, then Congress has to cite the person for contempt, then they have to get the DOJ to prosecute the contempt because they really don’t take witnesses into custody themselves).
But if a witness wants to testify (as Yates seems to), it goes a bit the other way — the administration would have to get a Court to order her precluded from testifying. That litigation might take some time, but because of the waiver — unlikely to be successful.
Patricia Kayden
@hovercraft: Good for April Ryan for not backing down to Sputtering Spicey. I guess Omarosa wasn’t able to intimidate her after all. **rolls eyes**
Bill
@Steve in the ATL: Here’s your guy: http://www.raygiudicelaw.com
I know his wife, who is also a lawyer.
Cacti
You’ve never lived in a trailer park, have you Doug?
Spanky
Tazj
Did anyone else hear Roger Stone being interviewed on NPR this afternoon? I only caught a snippet of it because I was driving at the time. He said the only reason why he knew about those leaks from the Clinton Campaign before they actually happened was because he had information from a friend of a friend of Assange(I’m paraphrasing). He also said that he just knew there would be leaks and didn’t know the actual content of the leaks. Therefore, because he had no direct contact with the leakers and the information, there could be no collusion?
He also said something about how everyone knew I had talked to Gruccifer at the time? Maybe via Twitter, because he said he had saved a screen shot of the conversation.
He just seemed so confident and brazen during the interview I was wondering what others thought of his involvement, who know more than I do.
efgoldman
@hovercraft:
Two words:
Paula
Jones
And the lawyer who won that case for the RWNJs in front of SCOTUS (Mr. Kelly Anne) is now in Pumpkin Pampers’ DOJ
hovercraft
@TenguPhule:
Well there are two Twitlers, one when supervised isn’t foaming at the mouth, and the other when left alone is dangerously unhinged and has no impulse control.
Duhkaman
@Mnemosyne: I don’t believe “privilege” can be interposed to prevent one’s counsel from reporting a planned crime. If we construe Trump’s (and his associates’) plans to commit perjury and perhaps other crimes to be the reason for raising “presidential privilege” then I would feel released from my obligations to protect confidential communications.
Immanentize
@LAO: I thought that is a sufficient waiver as well. He is the President’s spokesperson, after all.
hovercraft
@different-church-lady:
But they had steady jobs, all their needs were provided for, they never had it so good, no worries, they were well taken care of, so lucky!
schrodingers_cat
@cain: Pani puri is just not the same unless eaten on the street with tears streaming down your face. What I make at home is such a pale shadow of the original. What do you use for a filling? Chane’ or moong?
Immanentize
@Steve in the ATL: State or federal court?
SatanicPanic
@hovercraft: We should start working on Nancy Pelosi that this time she should not promise impeachment is off the table.
Immanentize
@hovercraft: Maybe the case could be removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction? problem solved.
rikyrah
Trump Isn’t Getting His Border Wall
by Martin Longman March 28, 2017 12:38 PM
There’s been a lot of speculation that President Trump’s heart wasn’t really committed to repealing Obamacare. He agreed to go along with the strategy of tackling the issue first, perhaps because he didn’t realize the odds against success, but his passion supposedly lies elsewhere. It’s a plausible argument, I guess, but he did talk rather relentlessly about repealing Obama’s signature law on the campaign trail.
The only issue I can think of that Trump talked about more was building a wall on our Southern border, and making the Mexicans pay for it. Regardless of where his true passion lies, a failure on both of these top themes of his run for the presidency would put a boulder-size dent in his reputation as a dealmaker.
Of course, just as there was a plan to repeal Obamacare, there has been a plan to fund the wall, too. But there are problems.
One problem is that that plan doesn’t entail the Mexicans signing the checks. Another problem is just emerging now. It doesn’t look like Congress wants to stick to the plan.
LAO
@Immanentize: I agree.
I was hoping you’d show up. You write nicer than me.
rikyrah
Sean Spicer Isn’t Taking the Russia Issue Seriously
by Martin Longman March 28, 2017 3:45 PM
I was interested to see how White House press secretary Sean Spicer would respond to the swirling mess around House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes’s bizarre secret late night visit to the White House last week, as well as to the breaking news that the White House initially attempted to thwart the testimony of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.
If I thought he was going to take these issues seriously, I was disappointed. At one point, Spicer told the assembled reporters that if the president had Russian dressing on his salad they would report it as a Russian connection.
He also went back on a promise to inform the press who it was who signed Devin Nunes into the White House complex.
His line on Sally Yates was somewhat defensible but also largely beside the point. Spicer noted that they ultimately did not exert an executive privilege to prevent her testimony and that they have no problem with her testifying in the future. Yet, that doesn’t explain why Devin Nunes cancelled her scheduled appearance before the House Intelligence Committee immediately after Yates’s attorney informed the White House that she intended to testify to precisely the things the White House was threatening her not to discuss.
efgoldman
@rikyrah:
CBS said earlier that ~600 companies have sent bids
for design and constructionto get in on the grift.Wait. This was the guy who’s last WH job was being Harvey, in a giant, scary Easter Bunny costume?
dm
I think it’s worth bearing in mind the Josh Marshall “They-don’t-want-to-look-as-they-don’t-know-what-might-be-found” theory, which basically says, they’ve all had so many wide-ranging contacts with the Russians that, if investigations start, they don’t themselves know what will be found. In a not-BJ-correct framing: “If you lie down with the dogs, you rise with fleas”.
For example, Jared is confident he’s okay, but he doesn’t know what Paul might have been mixed up with, Paul knows he’s only skirted the actually-illegal, but he’s not sure what Jeff-Beau might haves said in an unguarded moment, etc. That explains the “gosh they look guilty” behavior, too. They’re not actually guilty individually, but none of them is sure about the others.
Though, maybe that theory was stronger a couple of weeks ago when we knew less.
SFAW
@hovercraft:
No doubt. Shitgibbon will have to cut back his golfing and vacationing, from 15 days per month down to 13. That alone could induce a stroke or heart attack.
Mnemosyne
@Duhkaman:
That’s the gray area I’m curious about — when a lawyer in a privileged relationship has evidence that his client committed a crime and wants to testify. Obviously, trying to force someone to break privilege when they don’t want to is something different, but that’s not what I’m trying to figure out.
Immanentize
@Mnemosyne:
The answer is no. Even DOJ attorneys have to follow basic legal ethics rules; and the attorney/client privilege may be avoided if the attorney has information from the client regarding on going or imminent crime. So the ABA rules, for example, say a lawyer can spill the beans:
Immanentize
@LAO: waives! (blushes because not true)
jl
We are getting some great aphorisms out of it that we will all find useful.
I’m making a list.
I may owe Nunes for this one someday:”It wasn’t anything sneaky, the sun was out.”
That’s a keeper. If that becomes a standard excuse for nefarious shit, I can see how that will cone in real handy.
Mnemosyne
@Immanentize:
Okay, that makes sense. I was getting confused by the whole “privilege waiver” thing, which is probably way too much inside baseball for me.
Millard Filmore
@hovercraft:
Don’t want to cut into Trumps golfing time.
Immanentize
@Mnemosyne: That’s because it’s confusing! It really isn’t you….
There are some privileges where you can stop a person (not a lawyer) from testifying to even a crime. The most famous was the spousal privilege which in its 1950’s form prevented a spouse from testifying about any communications that happened during marriage — even if they were like, I”m gonna kill my mother for the insurance money.” We’ve changed most of those, however….
D58826
@randy khan: I suspect he was afraid of the number of baseballs, rotten apples and assorted other overripe veggies that would have been thrown back at him.
D58826
@efgoldman: ah karma
Bill
@Mnemosyne: “…when a lawyer in a privileged relationship has evidence that his client committed a crime and wants to testify.”
The lawyer cannot reveal information related to past crimes. If that weren’t the case, every criminal defense lawyer could be compelled to offer evidence against her clients. As to on-going or future crimes, the lawyer can not only reveal it, she’s may be under an obligation to do so.
As others have pointed out though, the dispute between Trump and Yates doesn’t really come down to those issues. First, it’s questionable whether there’s an attorney-client relationship between the President and the AG at all. (There isn’t.)
If alternatively Trump is relying on executive privilege, Tricky Dick tried that. It did not end well for him.
Shell
Bela Lugosi played a Russian politician in “Ninotchka.” Maybe without the required charm?
Ridnik Chrome
@jl: I could see “Beware of Falling Bathtubs” becoming a standard warning to people who get on the bad side of certain foreign intelligence agencies.
ETA: see @germy for explanation.
LAO
@Immanentize: nope. Your explanation of the crime/fraud exception was excellent.
If I had a nickel for every time I raised my hand and stopped a client from crossing that line, I’d be retired!
different-church-lady
@D58826: Naw, that’s not it: can’t wrap tiny fingers around ball well enough to throw a pitch.
Immanentize
@LAO: That’s the trick — keeping them from crossing the line! Give the client the stop sign hand, quick!
TenguPhule
@hovercraft:
So Trump wouldn’t be able to keep golfing on weekends then?
Guarantee one of the four justices on the court will point that out.
/4 justices & 4 Republican traitors on the court
Mnemosyne
@Immanentize:
Huh. Was that a leftover from the old Blackstone English common law declaration “husband and wife are one, and the husband is that one”?
I just finished reading a historical romance novel where the author managed to make it a compelling story problem that the heroine didn’t want to marry the hero because she would automatically lose control of the company she was trying to start, and their negotiations over how to arrange things after their marriage to allow her as much control as was legally possible in 1880s England.
(It was Lisa Kleypas’ The Devil in Spring, if anyone is curious.)
LAO
@Immanentize: works during cross examination until Judge notices, too.
TenguPhule
@Yarrow:
But he did. And he persisted.
efgoldman
@Immanentize:
But: that assumes the maladministration claim that all DOJ lawyers by definition have a privileged relationship with the president, is correct.
I can’t see SCOTUS buying that, from what I remember of the Watergate precedents.
Of course, as someone said upthread, by the time it’s resolved every one of the fuckers could be under indictment anyway.
bemused
@Villago Delenda Est:
Yesterday Star Tribune printed their annual United Way/Star Tribune Essay Contest. This year they asked metro area 3rd, 4th, 5th graders how they’ve tried to improve the lives of others by being kind or how an act of kindness affected them. Wonderful essays. One can’t read this without contrasting our kids with the WH & GOP who would be utterly incapable of writing what the kids did. Made me what to cry. Our kids have hearts and souls.
Steve in the ATL
@Bill: thank you!
joel hanes
Who now owns 19 % of Russian oil company Rosneft ?
How did they come to own it ? Who decided ? Why ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Shana
@Doug!: That reminds me, I’ve been looking for a good recipe for limoncello. Anyone have one?
Shana
@Temporarily Max McGee (Until Death!): Or Jules Munchin. Wasn’t he in Silk Stockings?
TenguPhule
@Shana: Depends. Is strong enough to tie your shoes while you’re not in them okay with you?
D58826
@different-church-lady: Well he could take Ivanka!
MaryL
@Mnemosyne: I don’t believe executive privilege in this context (a congressional subpoena) has ever been ruled on. The Bush administration invoked it during the AG scandal, so it’s certainly been used, but no court of law has ever said that its legitimate or illegitimate as a reason to prevent someone from testifying before Congres. Therefore, there’s really nothing stopping Yates from ignoring it.
Executive privilege was affirmed as a qualified privilege by SCOTUS in U.S. v. Nixon, but that was in the context of a special prosecutor’s investigation. A presumption of privilege can be overcome if the prosecutor makes a sufficient showing that the material is essential to the case.
Shana
@TenguPhule: Sure. Send it along.
a thousand flouncing lurkers (was fidelio)
@efgoldman: A question I wish Gorsuch had been faced with was whether 1) He would follow in William Rehnquist’s footsteps and recuse himself from any cases involving the president who appointed him and 2) Whether he felt the court’s unanimous (8-0; Rehnquist recused himself for this one) decision in 1974 in a case called United States v. Nixon was correct and well-supported.
I’d love to see him try to weasel away from both points.
chopper
@hovercraft:
yeah, I’m sure trump is too busy golfing and watching 4 hours of tv a day for a civil suit to go forward.
Steve in the ATL
@Immanentize: state, I assume, since it’s murder
Kay
Crime is just rampant at the highest levels on the Right:
Imagine what it’s like in that place. Just a huge pack of liars and criminal-types skulking around spying on one another.
Regnad Kcin
@trollhattan: First Minister (assuming you mean Ms. Sturgeon), but yeah
Kay
I just assumed this:
I’m not sure what they could reveal about Trump that would shock me. I can’t think of anything.
Paul in KY
@germy: Too cheesy & unbelievable. They laugh you out of MGM, I tells ya.
Paul in KY
@Villago Delenda Est: I think Sauron or Palpatine/Sidious or that guy in Stephen King’s ‘The Dead Zone’ would probably be more ethical. They would at least have values.
Paul in KY
@max: Bill never had to force em into it. The Paula Jones ‘accusations’ focused on him forcing her into a sex affair. There was no force.
Paul in KY
@sharl: That’s a fine alternate universe. I just got back from mine where 2 term Pres Gore, who then gave it up to 2 term Pres. Obama was just meeting with new President Franken & talking about the latest payout increases in Social Security and the solar energy dividend all will be getting from the massive power savings.
Man, that’s a fine alternate universe…
amk
Why the skeptical tone, Doug?
cain
@germy: WC Fields… damn, I feel old just knowing that old fossil exists. :-) “Ah yes… Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water”
cain
@Mnemosyne: That’s why oligarchs love the Republicans.. they sell their own mothers for cheap.
TenguPhule
@Shana: 2 bottles of vodka, zest from 10 lemons, 4 cups of sugar syrup.
Add lemon zest to 1 bottle of vodka, let sit for a month in a dark and cool place. Proceed to add sugar syrup and the rest of vodka. Let sit another 30 days. Strain out the lemon zest pieces.
Drink responsibly.
J R in WV
@cain:
My Dad, having not developed a taste for whiskey, always drank a vodka and tonic with a good squeeze of lime in it before dinner. If he was feeling good and didn’t have anything more complicated later on than a good concert he always felt free to have another.
I on the other hand did develop a taste for whiskey, and whisky, and good gin, and sparkling wine that isn’t too sweet. So if there’s nothing left to put in tonic, I’m OK with vodka, but if I want gin, I want good gin. Being a Vodka drinker, Dad was always happy with a plastic jug of cheap grain alcohol.
Late in life, when I spent quite a bit of time with Dad due to his declining health, he once told me he was going to the liquor store and asked if he could get me anything. So I asked for a bottle of good gin. What I got was bottom shelf Fleischman’s at $4.95 a bottle. With lots of tonic and lime, it was drinkable, if barely. There was still some left there when we sold the contents of the house at auction about 3 years later. I kept Dad’s collection of swizzle sticks, he had them from good bars all over the world. I can put my hands on them now.
We did drink the good scotch that his brother kept around in case he visited Dad. And made marguaritas with that liquor. But most of the wine had gone to vinegar. There wasn’t much of it. He would rather have had a strong vodka tonic and lime made with cheap vodka.