Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Breaking Bad has a lot to answer for.

The fact that this "put a dollar in my pocket" scheme to guarantee attorney-client privilege comes from "Breaking Bad" does not mean that Cohen and/or Hannity don't believe it.

everlast75

This is too good not to share. Oul Bullshít Mountain at its finest..


https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/986030849383481344

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Another possible explanation is that none of these people are very bright.

Yup. No argument from me there.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The fact that this "put a dollar in my pocket" scheme to guarantee attorney-client privilege comes from "Breaking Bad" does not mean that Cohen and/or Hannity don't believe it.

Well, while I'm always glad to believe bad things about Fox "News" hosts, it's hard to think that Hannity believed both that by making a token payment he could create an attorney/client relationship and so claim privilege, and that he could deny any attorney/client relationship and still claim privilege.

everlast75

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, while I'm always glad to believe bad things about Fox "News" hosts, it's hard to think that Hannity believed both that by making a token payment he could create an attorney/client relationship and so claim privilege, and that he could deny any attorney/client relationship and still claim privilege.

Well Hannity can see no contradiction between plaguing folk with conspiracy theories around the time of someone's death, and then asking for the media to respect his privacy when his name is read out in Court.... so no - it's not hard to think Hannity can believe two opposite things at the exact same time.

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

Well Hannity can see no contradiction between plaguing folk with conspiracy theories around the time of someone's death, and then asking for the media to respect his privacy when his name is read out in Court.... so no - it's not hard to think Hannity can believe two opposite things at the exact same time.

That's called cognitive dissonance. A prerequisite if you want to be in The Donald's gang.

FreudianSlippers

Peregrinus wrote: »

Simply making a payment of a dollar (or indeed of a larger amount) does not make a conversation privileged. Conversely, not making a payment does not mean that it is not privileged. It does not matter at all whether the lawyers is paid, or how much; all that matters is whether a lawyer-client relationship exists. Payment is irrelevant to that question.

Plus, if Hannity imagined that the plan was to characterise the relationship as a lawyer/client one in order to be able to invoke privilege, it's very unlikely that he thought that no note or record would be made. If you want at the outset to position yourself so that your relationship looks lawyery-clienty, then obviously you are going to do all the usual lawyery-clienty things, which includes keeping a file, keeping correspondence, documenting meetings and conversations, etc.

No, the simple explanation here is:

(a) Cohen named Hannity as a client either because he genuinely considers Hannity as a client or because he thinks the point is arguable but he wants to give Hannity the option of at least trying to claim privilege;

(b) Hannity was initially undecided whether it would be more damaging to him to acknowledge being Cohen's client and possibly have the benefit of privilege or deny being a client and abandon any claim to privilege, and at first he tried to have an each way bet;

(c) he has now realised (or been advised) that he can't have the each-way bet and, forced to choose one, he reckons not being a client and not claiming privilege is going to be less damaging to him than taking the opposite course.

Just to add that in the US, communications made in the contemplation of becoming a client are privileged (IIRC regardless of whether that person actually becomes a client) so long as the other requirements are satisfied.

VinLieger

Did Fox's attorney's let him go on the air last night?

Hurrache

VinLieger wrote: »

Did Fox's attorney's let him go on the air last night?

I don't know about TV, but he did host his radio show which went on air pretty soon after he was named.

jooksavage

VinLieger wrote: »

Did Fox's attorney's let him go on the air last night?

Yup. And even Trump-loving Alan Dershowitz chastised him for not declaring his own involvement with Cohen. Hannity replied weakly that he was entiltled to his privacy. Just like Seth Rich's family were when Hannity and sure-to-be-indicted Roger Stone were bandying about their murdered sons name in outlandish conspiracy theories.

I still wouldn't rule out the possibility that whatever Hannity was involved in is so bad that coming clean would be a career-ending move and his best shot is to deny deny deny and pray to Jesus that it doesnt make its way into the courthouse. Wishful thinking maybe but who knows.

everlast75

Thinking back on that "sick burn" by DJT on Stephanopoulos regarding the payment to Clinton's campaign, and it being a huge mistake by him.

The thought occurred to me last night.

Trump himself donated to her campaign in the past.. the big Dolt! Is there literally any topic he won't espouse hypocrisy on?

amandstu

A bit of a side issue perhaps but that last statement of Daniels outside the courtroom where she referred to "people like me" was quite strong stuff.

A shame Trump et Al are already in the gutter or it would have been even stronger.

Compelling TV.

Mumha

Lawrence O'Donnell was on form last night with his guest Michael Avenatti....enjoy !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89XiBsLTN44

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

Well Hannity can see no contradiction between plaguing folk with conspiracy theories around the time of someone's death, and then asking for the media to respect his privacy when his name is read out in Court.... so no - it's not hard to think Hannity can believe two opposite things at the exact same time.

There's nothing to say that he does actually believe that.

You always wonder with people like this - shysters, fraudsters, conspiracy nuts, televangelists and all that - whether they do actually believe what they're peddling, or if they're not just utterly cynical and selfish, and are happy to say literally anything so long as its to their own benefit.

Do they have a moral code beyond the urge to enrich themselves or gain more power?
Of course, as Hanlon's razor goes, don't say something's malicious when stupidity will do, but surely sometimes it's malicious?

everlast75

Gbear wrote: »

There's nothing to say that he does actually believe that.

You always wonder with people like this - shysters, fraudsters, conspiracy nuts, televangelists and all that - whether they do actually believe what they're peddling, or if they're not just utterly cynical and selfish, and are happy to say literally anything so long as its to their own benefit.

Do they have a moral code beyond the urge to enrich themselves or gain more power?
Of course, as Hanlon's razor goes, don't say something's malicious when stupidity will do, but surely sometimes it's malicious?

That's a good point actually.

Hannity is a "personality" (and yes, I see the irony), as is Alex Jones, Glenn Beck etc. and what has been shown in the past is, that when people like them are put into the witness box, the charade is stripped away and they admit as much. In a great piece by the Opposition comedy show, they confronted Alex Jones outside of court and accused him of being a "crisis actor".

So, to your point, Hannity would peddle any BS to hit the ratings. Whether he believes what he is spouting, as you say, might be another thing.

Where I was coming from?
When someone says something, I take it to mean they actually believe it. I guess when it comes to these kind of fraudsters, that makes me pretty naive

Hurrache

Gbear wrote: »

There's nothing to say that he does actually believe that.

You always wonder with people like this - shysters, fraudsters, conspiracy nuts, televangelists and all that - whether they do actually believe what they're peddling, or if they're not just utterly cynical and selfish, and are happy to say literally anything so long as its to their own benefit.

Do they have a moral code beyond the urge to enrich themselves or gain more power?
Of course, as Hanlon's razor goes, don't say something's malicious when stupidity will do, but surely sometimes it's malicious?

Alex Jones, either by trying to save his own skin by lying, or admitting the truth, said that his TV/radio character was just an act when his on air outbursts and rants were used as evidence to show he wasn't a stable man during the custody battle with his wife.

jooksavage

Just back to the Russian sanctions - im convinced now that either Trump is actually compromised, or he's just paranoid the Russians have something on him. Its hard to rationalize this behavaviour otherwise. What the hell though is wrong with the senior Rs who are standing by watching the Commander In Chief acting like a man in thrawl to Putin? If Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.

amandstu

jooksavage wrote: »

Just back to the Russian sanctions - im convinced now that either Trump is actually compromised, or he's just paranoid the Russians have something on him. Its hard to rationalize this behavaviour otherwise. What the hell though is wrong with the senior Rs who are standing by watching the Commander In Chief acting like a man in thrawl to Putin? If Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.

Has the GOP been destroyed by ,first the Tea Party and now Trump so that they know they cannot fight him openly but only wait in the long grass even though time may not be on their side?

ie they are in part putting their shell of a party before the common good.... in part accepting the inevitable.

Mumha

jooksavage wrote: »

Just back to the Russian sanctions - im convinced now that either Trump is actually compromised, or he's just paranoid the Russians have something on him. Its hard to rationalize this behavaviour otherwise. What the hell though is wrong with the senior Rs who are standing by watching the Commander In Chief acting like a man in thrawl to Putin? If Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.

Firstly, Ryan is a coward of historic proportions, who still won't rock the boat because he will go off working as a corporate lobbyist after November.

Secondly, Trump's compromise didn't just happen in Moscow in 2013, it went on long before that, back through his bankruptcy in 2008 and before. Russian money laundering through his businesses, which is why he has been so protective of his tax returns.

Thirdly, Senior Republicans had white line fever. They saw the opportunity to control the 3 branches of government, and enact all their policies. Now they see the prospect of losing 2 branches in November, with the Trump then being mired in Dem controlled House and Senate investigations.

Zubeneschamali

jooksavage wrote: »

JIf Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.

Ryan got his giant unfunded tax-cut through, he doesn't care about the clown show in the White House.

Mumha

amandstu wrote: »

Has the GOP been destroyed by ,first the Tea Party and now Trump so that they know they cannot fight him openly but only wait in the long grass even though time may not be on their side?

ie they are in part putting their shell of a party before the common good.... in part accepting the inevitable.

Actually that's a great post. The emergence of the Tea Party, (d)evolving into the "Freedom Caucus" has been a ticking timebomb within the GOP. It is appalling that a rump of a party can dictate to the majority (remember the problems the Militant Tendency cause the British Labour Party), and I'd be slightly concerned about the so-called Progressives within the Democratic Party.

The problem with the GOP going forward is how does the majority within the party re-assert control from the minority, that would otherwise be not listened to, without blowing up the party ? Blowing up the party might be the best thing in the short term, though not the long term for the US, as it depends on a functioning two party system.

Professor Moriarty

The Donald's tweet April 12th:

California Governor Jerry Brown is doing the right thing and sending the National Guard to the Border. Thank you Jerry, good move for the safety of our Country!

The Donald's tweet April 17th:

Looks like Jerry Brown and California are not looking for safety and security along their very porous Border. He cannot come to terms for the National Guard to patrol and protect the Border. The high crime rate will only get higher. Much wanted Wall in San Diego already started!


Jerry got it wrong. Bad! Loser! Slimeball!

Hurrache

The odd thing I find about the whole San Diego thing is that when I was at the border there on more than one occasion I got the impression it was probably one of the more secure crossings in the whole state. It was ridiculously porous in the 90s but they got a handle on it which is why I think it's pretty secure now.

Professor Moriarty

Hurrache wrote: »

The odd thing I find about the whole San Diego thing is that when I was at the border there on more than one occasion I got the impression it was probably one of the more secure crossings in the whole state.

It's all about the optics. In reality, The Donald doesn't give a crap about Mexicans coming and going across the border in California. Trump Tower is along way from San Diego.

notobtuse

Mumha wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

Has the GOP  been destroyed  by ,first the Tea Party and now Trump  so that they know they cannot  fight him openly but only wait in the long grass even though time may not be on their side?

ie they are in part  putting their shell of a party before the common good.... in part accepting the inevitable.

Actually that's a great post. The emergence of the Tea Party, (d)evolving into the "Freedom Caucus" has been a ticking timebomb within the GOP. It is appalling that a rump of a party can dictate to the majority (remember the problems the Militant Tendency cause the British Labour Party), and I'd be slightly concerned about the so-called Progressives within the Democratic Party.

The problem with the GOP going forward is how does the majority within the party re-assert control from the minority, that would otherwise be not listened to, without blowing up the party ? Blowing up the party might be the best thing in the short term, though not the long term for the US, as it depends on a functioning two party system.

Really?  I was a member of the Tea Party for about 2 years.  I must have missed the memo that the Tea Party (d)evolved into the Freedom Caucus.  The Freedom Caucus was always sympathetic to the diminished Tea Party movement, but quite different. The Tea party was issue-based in nature, promoted fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a stricter adherence to the US Constitution.  The Freedom Caucus supports an open, accountable and limited government, supports the US Constitution and the rule of law, and adheres to policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.  But yes, the Freedom Caucus worries the establishment Republicans as the FC strives to move the GOP more to the right.

Blowfish

jooksavage wrote: »

Just back to the Russian sanctions - im convinced now that either Trump is actually compromised, or he's just paranoid the Russians have something on him. Its hard to rationalize this behavaviour otherwise. What the hell though is wrong with the senior Rs who are standing by watching the Commander In Chief acting like a man in thrawl to Putin? If Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.

The more this go on, the more I get the feeling that it's not actually Putin, at least not directly, that he's in thrall to. He seemed ok with kicking diplomats out and bombing Syria, both which affect the Russian nation directly. The main part that he ends up wriggling out of is the imposing of sanctions, which is targeted not at Russia as a nation, but directly at the oligarchs. Some went through in April, but on at least 2 other occasions he hasn't implemented them.

If I had an alternative career as an investigative journalist, I'd be looking at the powerful in Russia to try to find specifically who Trump is avoiding hitting with sanctions as that's who most likely has the dirt on him.

amandstu

Blowfish wrote: »

The more this go on, the more I get the feeling that it's not actually Putin, at least not directly, that he's in thrall to. He seemed ok with kicking diplomats out and bombing Syria, both which affect the Russian nation directly. The main part that he ends up wriggling out of is the imposing of sanctions, which is targeted not at Russia as a nation, but directly at the oligarchs. Some went through in April, but on at least 2 other occasions he hasn't implemented them.

If I had an alternative career as an investigative journalist, I'd be looking at the powerful in Russia to try to find specifically who Trump is avoiding hitting with sanctions as that's who most likely has the dirt on him.

Not just a supra nationalist with America as a franchise?

He might just have more in common with the wild west of international corporations and have "gone native" over the years with Russian companies and dealings.

Just a feeling. Could be way off on this.

notobtuse

I am not a fan of the bombing of Syria.  The US can’t be the world’s moral police.  Trump called Putin’s bluff to shoot down all missiles and gave him a black eye.  Putin will retaliate, no doubt... not with bombs, but with 1’s and 0’s in the form of cyber attacks, IMO.  But I think the UK, rather than the US, will be his primary target.

everlast75

Blowfish wrote: »

The more this go on, the more I get the feeling that it's not actually Putin, at least not directly, that he's in thrall to. He seemed ok with kicking diplomats out and bombing Syria, both which affect the Russian nation directly. The main part that he ends up wriggling out of is the imposing of sanctions, which is targeted not at Russia as a nation, but directly at the oligarchs. Some went through in April, but on at least 2 other occasions he hasn't implemented them.

If I had an alternative career as an investigative journalist, I'd be looking at the powerful in Russia to try to find specifically who Trump is avoiding hitting with sanctions as that's who most likely has the dirt on him.

I'm not an expert on all things Russia, but from what I have read, Putin and the oligarchs have a quasi-symbiotic relationship. He bent them to his will but from that moment on, they will play ball, so long as they can act with impunity.

If their financial dealings are impacted, they will look to him - in the same way that someone paying protection money to a bloke will look to him if someone else muscles in.

Any sign of weakness (i.e. he can't control what the US is doing) on the part of Putin may place him in literal danger. But, if you lie down with dogs...

amandstu

notobtuse wrote: »

I am not a fan of the bombing of Syria.  The US can’t be the world’s moral police.  Trump called Putin’s bluff to shoot down all missiles and gave him a black eye.  Putin will retaliate, no doubt... not with bombs, but with 1’s and 0’s in the form of cyber attacks, IMO.  But I think the UK, rather than the US, will be his primary target.

He would need to be very careful,I would have thought. Very far from expert but I would be very surprised (and worried) if both the UK and the USA would not be able to defend themselves -both reactively and proactively.

He may also believe his own hype that his population really supports him.

jooksavage

Blowfish wrote: »

The more this go on, the more I get the feeling that it's not actually Putin, at least not directly, that he's in thrall to. He seemed ok with kicking diplomats out and bombing Syria, both which affect the Russian nation directly. The main part that he ends up wriggling out of is the imposing of sanctions, which is targeted not at Russia as a nation, but directly at the oligarchs. Some went through in April, but on at least 2 other occasions he hasn't implemented them.

If I had an alternative career as an investigative journalist, I'd be looking at the powerful in Russia to try to find specifically who Trump is avoiding hitting with sanctions as that's who most likely has the dirt on him.

Apparently Trump lost his s*** when he heard how many dipolmats were being expelled. "There were curse words. A lot of curse words" according to an official who witnessed the reaction.

Definitely agree though i think that all this goes back to the when American banks wouldn't give him the time of day and he had to turn to, ahem, alternative sources of capital. Mueller just needs to "follow the money".