The Swamp

Oh, Katrina Pierson. She's all caught up in this. How neat.

Trump looks like Nathan from Southpark (and apparently I'm not first one to make connection):

From our discussion above,

The Wilderness is a great podcast discussing what direction the Democrats should take next.

Two episodes were released yesterday talking about the economy and policies the Democrats should campaign on that we've been talking about. Universal healthcare, Universal income, free college, $15 minimum wage etc..

https://crooked.com/podcast-series/thewilderness/

Realistic or pie in the sky?

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:10 am

what the fuck?

I saw that image originally and it was pretty obvious (as it was to all of you probably) it was making fun of/mocking the people in the image, but Stone is one of those people who is impervious to humor (and I say that after having watch the doc about him on Netflix). He's just so self-absorbed I think he thinks being included in it is more of a complement than an insult.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:52 am Its probably an auto-correct setting they've put on his phone.

Good call. Guaranteed that it's the case.

For those of you who care about these things, a couple of reporters may have discovered who Q is.

Paul Manafort Defense Rests Without Calling Witnesses

Sooo, what does this mean, Swamp lawyers? Pardon incoming?

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:28 pm Paul Manafort Defense Rests Without Calling Witnesses

Sooo, what does this mean, Swamp lawyers? Pardon incoming?

Usually, the idea is that the prosecutor's case is so weak that there's no need to offer up an alternative explanation or witnesses. That of course isn't always true, but that's the message you're sending to the jury. So I think it would be premature to assume that it is a strategy that presumes a pardon. Also, given Trump's effort to distance himself from Manafort (again, poorly done but still intended to distance himself) issuing a pardon immediately after the verdict might not be the smartest move.

Even with Gates testifying on the stand that he and Manafort committed crimes together, the strategy is that it's all bullshit or something?

Ok then. Seems very weird to me.

A lot of these chess pieces don't really start moving into place until after the midterms. I think the Mueller investigation itself is mostly marking time until that happens as well and the level of oversight (or lack thereof) into the executive branch is known. Come mid-November, I think stuff starts happening.

If the GOP still controls the House and Senate, the first domino to fall will likely be a pardon for Manafort. That will set off a firestorm but nothing much will come of it. Then comes the removal of Rosenstein and the end of the Mueller investigation, which the GOP will also allow to happen.

At that point, it's possible the worst stuff from the investigation leaks, possibly from House Democrats. Then we have the biggest constitutional crisis in American history on our hands.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:44 pm Even with Gates testifying on the stand that he and Manafort committed crimes together, the strategy is that it's all bullshit or something?

Ok then. Seems very weird to me.

I don't know if it's the BEST strategy, but it is a recognized often-used legal strategy. The idea is that lending any credence to the "bullshit" charges against you is beneath you, etc., etc.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:39 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:28 pm Paul Manafort Defense Rests Without Calling Witnesses

Sooo, what does this mean, Swamp lawyers? Pardon incoming?

Usually, the idea is that the prosecutor's case is so weak that there's no need to offer up an alternative explanation or witnesses. That of course isn't always true, but that's the message you're sending to the jury. So I think it would be premature to assume that it is a strategy that presumes a pardon. Also, given Trump's effort to distance himself from Manafort (again, poorly done but still intended to distance himself) issuing a pardon immediately after the verdict might not be the smartest move.

I don't think anybody credible accuse this administration of making smart moves

brian wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:46 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:44 pm Even with Gates testifying on the stand that he and Manafort committed crimes together, the strategy is that it's all bullshit or something?

Ok then. Seems very weird to me.

I don't know if it's the BEST strategy, but it is a recognized often-used legal strategy. The idea is that lending any credence to the "bullshit" charges against you is beneath you, etc., etc.

Well, today I learned...

GoodKarma wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:53 pm

brian wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:39 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:28 pm Paul Manafort Defense Rests Without Calling Witnesses

Sooo, what does this mean, Swamp lawyers? Pardon incoming?

Usually, the idea is that the prosecutor's case is so weak that there's no need to offer up an alternative explanation or witnesses. That of course isn't always true, but that's the message you're sending to the jury. So I think it would be premature to assume that it is a strategy that presumes a pardon. Also, given Trump's effort to distance himself from Manafort (again, poorly done but still intended to distance himself) issuing a pardon immediately after the verdict might not be the smartest move.

I don't think anybody credible accuse this administration of making smart moves

To be sure, but there's still some adults behind the scenes like Kelly who are making some moves. I mean the whole thing seems almost ready to go off the rails, but to the extent that Trump is still listening to his lawyers and Kelly I'm sure they're telling him not to do shit w/r/t Manafort.

And the law dogs in the Swamp can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not unusual at all for the defense to not present any witnesses. Remember they've had a chance to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the government so they've possibly planted some seeds of doubt in the jury's mind as to Manafort's innocence and trotting up a bunch of needless character witnesses only serves to potentially antagonize the jury by making the trial longer than necessary. Considering it's already in its third week, it could earn some points with the jury to get things moving to the deliberation stage faster.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:44 pm Even with Gates testifying on the stand that he and Manafort committed crimes together, the strategy is that it's all bullshit or something?

Ok then. Seems very weird to me.

From what I've seen and read, Manafort's strategy was to attack Gates' credibility. Either they are trying to show the government case is so weak, they can just say, "the government failed to prove their case" and leave it there. My barely informed opinion is that Manafort and any witnesses for the Defense are more likely to hurt the case if questioned.The charges were black and white crimes that can be proven on paper. Manafort received money and failed to report it. They have documentation of the funds, and proof he never declared the income on taxes or to other various agencies he needed to declare foreign payments. The purpose of all the testimony concerning his ostrich coats and closet full of $50,000 suits was to show he spent lavishly in cash on little declared income because he needed to launder his illegally undeclared funds. I'm terrified that a MAGA deplorable or two conned their way into the jury, because from everything I've seen, it's an absolute slam dunk case.

IIRC, the other advantage a defendant gets in not providing any case in chief (cross examination only) is the "sandwich" in closing arguments, meaning they get to go first and last with the prosecution in the middle. That could be just a rule of Florida criminal procedure though.

Luckily, I still have my clearance after today.

Edit:

Must be in response to this:

I know you guys don't like Ben Shapiro but this is hilarious.

I mean, to state the obvious, the defense of Trump that he wasn't being racist in that particular instance, he's just being an asshole, like usual...

That's a pretty damning defense.

And it doesn't discount or absolve his history of blatant racism, obviously.

of course Trump is an asshole. He couldn't even sign the John McCain Defense Bill without taking shots at McCain.
That's a great bill for Republicans if Trump were a normal human being.

The last thing I’m going to do is click a video of Ben Shapiro talking about racism. He has a history of virulent racism towards Palestinians and (at best) extreme ignorance about anti-black racism in the USA.

But I will say that the use of dehumanizing words like dogs, animals, vermin, cockroaches etc. to refer to minority individuals or groups is a classic racist trope. I’m definitely not giving Trump the benefit of the doubt here.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:28 am of course Trump is an asshole. He couldn't even sign the John McCain Defense Bill without taking shots at McCain.
That's a great bill for Republicans if Trump were a normal human being.

Right, but even Huckabee at one of her briefings was like "He's been really mean to a LOT of people, not just Omarosa, so... You guys just get it over it already."

No, fuck you. The President is not supposed to be a bullying fuckhead.

Not to mention the lunacy of hiring her, praising her, and then turning around and calling her a whackjob and any other number of names. The fact that his fucking moron base doesn't see how idiotic that line of thinking is absolutely proves the point about their lack of cognitive functionality.

Overall, I'm talking about normalizing this bullshit. Nope. Not gonna make it normal. It's fucked up and everyone not Fox News and his idiot base is calling them on it on a daily basis.

yeah he only hires the best people. Sloppy Steve, Wacko Omorosa and Oscar the Grouch Tillerson.

ah, FOX News

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:36 am The last thing I’m going to do is click a video of Ben Shapiro talking about racism. He has a history of virulent racism towards Palestinians and (at best) extreme ignorance about anti-black racism in the USA.

It will not surprise to learn that the ultra-orthodox rabbi who lives across the road from me thinks that Ben Shapiro is pretty sharp.

Like no one could see this coming....



I'm just glad I'm stationed nowhere near the east coast.

Oh, shit.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:56 pmOh, shit.

Yeah, let's see the Fucking Moron in Chief try to go after THIS guy.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:09 pmYeah, let's see the Fucking Moron in Chief try to go after THIS guy.

“William H. McRaven, a former Admiral nobody only getting attention for taking credit for a Shot one of his Men took, sounds like a McRaven lunatic ...”

“Nonlinear FC” wrote:Ok, well. I guess he did.

So who's more of an idiot in this Brunson affair - Trump or Erdogan?

I'd say that it's unbelievable that two putative allies are falling away from each other over something so inconsequential, but of course, nothing is unbelievable any more.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:13 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:09 pmYeah, let's see the Fucking Moron in Chief try to go after THIS guy.

“William H. McRaven, a former Admiral nobody only getting attention for taking credit for a Shot one of his Men took, sounds like a McRaven lunatic ...”

“Nonlinear FC” wrote:Ok, well. I guess he did.

Cool improv sesh.

To be clear, of course it's more than possible he DOES go after him... I hope he does.

Trump argues with Vietnam vets about Agent Orange, Apocalypse Now.

If we weren't having to live through this nightmare, it would probably be hysterical.

brian wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:47 am Trump argues with Vietnam vets about Agent Orange, Apocalypse Now.

If we weren't having to live through this nightmare, it would probably be hysterical.

Looks like I may need to take some leave...

brian wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:47 am Trump argues with Vietnam vets about Agent Orange, Apocalypse Now.

If we weren't having to live through this nightmare, it would probably be hysterical.

Can you imagine being stuck in that meeting? Sitting there thinking 'I know he's the President, but he's a fucking moron'.

It's a Salon article, but it's pretty good.

The people on Trump’s list aren’t enemies, they are witnesses

Rachel Maddow did a brilliant job on her show on Thursday night showing several of those on Trump’s enemies list testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in May of 2017. She was making another point, that pulling their security clearances will end the ability of any of Trump’s enemies to consult their personal papers and notes from their time in government service when preparing to give testimony before either congress or Mueller’s grand jury because their notes and papers contain secrets.