Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Trump may try to claw back as much as $60 billion from spending bill
. This despite the fact that Republicans in both houses of Congress have told Trump and Mulvaney not to do this and that they won't vote for it. Specifically mentioned are Collins, Murkowski, and Thune in the Senate, and Rodney Frelinghuysen and Tom Cole in the House. But McCarthy seems to be on Mulvaney's side, so who knows what will happen.
The Republicans in general seem to be saying they won't support this, and that trying to change the budget again, especially when they have to do the next spending bill in September, would be reckless and wrong, since it could threaten another shutdown right before the midterms. But we all know the Republican track record in standing up to Trump, so...
I'm surprised at how little he wants to cut; sure, 60 Billion Dollars is still big, but considering the Omnibus cost a total of $1.3 Trillion(!), that is relatively tiny. It doesn't even break 1/10th of the spending in it. And knowing Trump, the stuff he'll want to cut will harm the core Republican constituency the most (the 'minor' welfare programs that benefit the older and more rural citizens of America).
Honestly I think this is one of the few times that Republicans would be willing to stand up to Trump, even to people as pathetic and irrational as the GOP catering to his self-destructive whims fails to pass the simplest cost/benefit analysis at this juncture.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThread
by Renato Mariotti, on Cohen's latest attempt to challenge the search warrant in court.
1/ The letter linked here
, was sent by Trump’s lawyers to the judge overseeing Cohen’s challenge to the prosecution’s seizure of documents from Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room pursuant to search warrants signed by a federal judge.
2/ As a starting point, Cohen’s challenge to the search warrants is extraordinary, and Trump’s intervention into Cohen’s legal action is even more unusual. It’s not clear that Trump has the right to challenge the government’s review of documents seized from Cohen at this stage.
3/ Typically when the government executes a search warrant, the government uses a “taint team”—a group of lawyers walled off from the investigators—to deal with privilege issues. Taint teams often aren’t necessary but are required when a lawyer is involved.
4/ Although searches of lawyer’s offices are unusual, there are established Justice Department procedures for handling them. Those procedures typically include using a taint team. On Friday, Cohen objected to using a taint team and asked to review the documents himself.
5/ As you can imagine, this was a non-starter for the prosecutors. The reason prosecutors obtained the search warrant is because they convinced a judge that there was good reason to believe Cohen committed a crime and evidence of the crime was in his office, home, and hotel room.
6/ If Cohen had the ability to go through the documents and remove documents he didn’t want the prosecution to see, he could abuse that by removing documents that prove his guilt.
7/ The typical way that prosecutors obtain records in white collar cases is through subpoena, not search warrants. If the prosecutors sent Cohen a subpoena, he *could* have gone through the records on his own and removed some of them.
8/ Prosecutors typically use that process despite the risk because it’s more efficient and cost-effective for the prosecution. But in this case, they had a reason not to—they believed Cohen would not turn over everything. Using a search warrant takes Cohen out of the process.
9/ That’s why Cohen’s request was so incredible—he was essentially asking the court to transform the search warrant into a subpoena, which doesn’t require the government to prove things to a judge. It is likely to fail. So what about Trump’s filing?
10/ Trump is essentially asking the judge for the same thing Cohen is—he wants the right to go through Cohen’s documents and pull out ones he believes are privileged. In a way, that’s even more unusual because the documents aren’t his, although he has an interest in them.
11/ In the letter, Trump’s lawyers cite no law, rule, or legal opinion that grants Trump the right to go through documents seized by the government pursuant to the search warrant. They’re essentially asking the judge to do so based on “fairness.” (The exact word they use.)
12/ Even if the judge had the power to do that—I’m not sure she does—I highly doubt she will. One thing she may do is appoint a neutral “special master” to review the documents to determine if they’re privileged. That person would be a “taint team” but appointed by the court.
13/ Appointing a special master is not without precedent, but it wouldn’t get Cohen or Trump much as a practical matter. In a filing on Friday, prosecutors noted that they previously executed other search warrants on Cohen’s email accounts and found that he wasn’t practicing law.
14/ Only communications regarding legal advice are privileged, and even those communications can lose their privilege if they’re furthering a crime.
15/ If recent press reports are correct, the warrants sought communications between Trump and Cohen, which indicates that they were discussing a topic that relates to the crime under investigation by prosecutors.
16/ As a practical matter, a special master won’t make determinations about privilege that will be much different from a “taint team.” Given that these communications were sought by the warrant, I’d expect prosecutors will obtain what they were looking for. /end
I'd say this will get thrown out pretty quickly.
edited 15th Apr '18 9:11:00 PM by megaeliz
Again, Trump and Cohen seem to be playing Connect-Four in the back yard with a classroom of toddlers, while Mueller and company are playing a hybrid of Risk and three-dimensional chess. It's not merely lopsided, it's actually somewhat pathetic.
edited 16th Apr '18 5:53:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Trump is playing Tic Tac Toe and his first move was to pick one the middle edge squares.
He's suprisingly restrained this morning.
Russia and China are playing the Currency Devaluation game as the U.S. keeps raising interest rates. Not acceptable!
I was expecting more after last nights Comey interview.
edited 16th Apr '18 7:26:55 AM by megaeliz
The NYT editorial page is on a roll today, trying desperately to convince Republicans that Trump, like Nixon, is not above the law Full article text and also warning that pardons won't save Trump and his cronies the way he thinks. Full article text
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silaswedited 16th Apr '18 8:23:28 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.With regards to the Supreme Court and this issue, while Republicans do control the court (you really need to look into depoliticizing the judiciary, if that's even possible without a wholesale purge), you've got ones like Roberts and Kennedy who aren't as willing to do blatantly biased rulings if they feel the court's reputation is at risk. And since this looks pretty clear cut...I'd say our chances are decent to good.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Reality ain't gonna come back. I learned that way a long time ago.
edited 16th Apr '18 8:48:41 AM by Steven
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
X4 I assume a spelling error and Tactical Fox means “was briefed by a playboy bunny” or “is briefing a playboy bunny”, as Trump is also sledged to have had an affair with a playboy bunny.
X3 Playboy bunnies tend to not go on to become judges.
edited 16th Apr '18 9:14:16 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo, really.
I looked it up and was kind of confused because I would have thought the detail would be publicized.
The Judge is Kimba Wood
, and she was a Military Brat with a rather privileged upbringing that involved a lot of time spent in Europe. During the 1960's, when she was in England, she briefly took part in a Playboy Bunny training.
So. technically accurate, but misleading, since it gives the impression of someone whose age and other details are more akin to those of Karen Mc Dougal.
Five days training while a student isn’t realy being a playboy bunny, still it’s a weird coincidence.
Though it could be deliberate, she might well be the only relevant judge to have non-client interaction with people in the industry.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMore trump lawyer woes.
Another white collar lawyer turns down Trump [1]
People close to Trump contacted New York attorney Steven Molo, a former prosecutor who specializes in white collar defense and court room litigation, in recent weeks following the departure of attorney John Dowd from Trump's personal legal team.
Molo has a depth of courtroom experience, which could suggest the kind of skills Trump's legal team is seeking as it prepares to decide whether the President will be interviewed by Mueller. The approach to Molo followed the March announcement that attorneys Joseph di Genova and Victoria Toensing would not join the Trump team because of conflicts.
Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow declined to comment.
Molo also said conflicts played a role in his decision to turn down the offer to represent the President, a client that some lawyers have said is too difficult to manage. Trump's lawyers are still having trouble finding attorneys to join their team.
"I regret a current conflict related to the investigation prevents me from representing the President at this time," Molo told CNN.
"Conflicts", seems to be the catch all for "I don't want to take him as a client because he doesn't listen and is known for not paying people. This isn't good for Trump though. He's already absurdly outmatched, and this does not help matters at all.
Personally, I'm waiting for him to fire all of his lawyers, and try to represent himself, because he's obviously the best at it.
edited 16th Apr '18 10:28:31 AM by megaeliz

The concerning bit to me, is that the President of France had to be the one to convince our President to actually do the right thing, and keep the strike limited to chemical weapons facilities, as well as staying in Syria entirely.
Also, James Comey's ABC Interview is on right now, just so people know.
edited 15th Apr '18 7:09:19 PM by megaeliz