Just learned that too. (It means "rule by the worst," btw.)
Not to be confused with khakistocracy, which is rule by lame suburban dads.
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
Just learned that too. (It means "rule by the worst," btw.)
Fanniebug wrote: P.S. rass! Dont write me again, dude! You're in ignore list!
I thought it might mean rule by shitheads (cacastocracy}Johnny Carwash wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:18 amJust learned that too. (It means "rule by the worst," btw.)
Not to be confused with khakistocracy, which is rule by lame suburban dads.
The hopeful nonsense part struck a chord with me, because that's precisely what's happening today with those who insist on remaining willfully blind.In Iraq and with the financial crisis, it was helpful, as a reporter, to be able to divide the world into those who actually understand what was happening and those who said hopeful nonsense. The path of both crises turned out to be far worse than I had imagined.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:45 pmThe hopeful nonsense part struck a chord with me, because that's precisely what's happening today with those who insist on remaining willfully blind.In Iraq and with the financial crisis, it was helpful, as a reporter, to be able to divide the world into those who actually understand what was happening and those who said hopeful nonsense. The path of both crises turned out to be far worse than I had imagined.
Don’t read the whack-a-mole comments below the article. Yikes.Pruitt wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:26 pmYou can fool some of the people all of the time.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:45 pmThe hopeful nonsense part struck a chord with me, because that's precisely what's happening today with those who insist on remaining willfully blind.In Iraq and with the financial crisis, it was helpful, as a reporter, to be able to divide the world into those who actually understand what was happening and those who said hopeful nonsense. The path of both crises turned out to be far worse than I had imagined.
Love this cited article about Cohen:
US Attorney’s office to Michael Cohen: You’re hardly a lawyer
Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:15 pm I think Judge Wood just messed up big time. There was no justification for forcing public disclosure of a secret attorney-client relationship. It may be a violation of Hannity's privilege. It's definitely a violation of Hannity's right to privacy.
If I were Cohen, I'd have refused to identify the client. If the judge found me in contempt, so be it.
P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:05 amYou got me excited for a new episode. Not up yet :(govmentchedda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:53 pm Saw Pod Save America live tonight. The wife listens to it every week. Good show.
From what I've heard (I didn't read the actual court documents), the Government argued Cohen was not acting as an attorney, therefore none of his communications are privileged. Cohen argued he was acting as an attorney to several clients, then the Judge requested he provided the names of his clients, and she refused to keep the names confidential. I don't understand the rationale for publicising the names of clients, but even the Trump supporting pundits are all saying she is a fair judge with integrity. Interesting, I see she was a Reagan appointee. I didn't remember her name, but I do remember the scandal when Clinton appointed her for the Attorney General post. Clinton initially appointed Zoe Baird, but Baird withdrew over the (now quaint) scandal that she hired two illegal alien caretakers for their children and failed to pay proper payroll taxes. Wood was going to get the appointment next, but she also hired an illegal alien as a nanny.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:15 pm I think Judge Wood just messed up big time. There was no justification for forcing public disclosure of a secret attorney-client relationship. It may be a violation of Hannity's privilege. It's definitely a violation of Hannity's right to privacy.
If I were Cohen, I'd have refused to identify the client. If the judge found me in contempt, so be it.
On his radio show on Monday, Hannity offered a slightly different, and somewhat contradictory, answer. “Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him, I never paid legal fees to Michael,” Hannity said, appearing to contradict Cohen’s attorney’s statement in court. “But I have occasionally had brief legal discussions with him where I wanted his input and perspective.” Yet Hannity then said he “might have handed” Cohen $10 and said, “I want attorney-client privilege on this.” It’s not clear whether that would meet the legal standard to establish an attorney-client privilege.
Considering that Cohen's other two clients are Trump, and RNC finance guy Broidy, and the main/only service he's done is paying hush money to a porn star and a Playboy Playmate, its not too big of a stretch to imagine he provided the same service for Hannity.
There were rumors of Hannity acting as the go-between for the Trump campaign and Assange/WikiLeaks. If true, there is a good chance Cohen has evidence of this. Hannity was actively involved in Trump's campaign, including lending the campaign his private jet so they could meet with Pence when they offered Pence the VP post. I can't fathom how lending a jet doesn't violate campaign finance laws, as the value has to be over the limit. I was pissed at the time, just for the hypocrisy of Hannity raging at CNN for being "in the bag" for Trump at the same time he was acting as an advisor to Trump and lending his plane, while constantly having him on to tee up softballs and let Trump lie about everything, and claim he was tough, but Trump withstood the onslaught.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
What credible person thinks this way? Meaning, how is it you can’t dissect Comey’s actions while simultaneously aware there was a massive campaign afoot by the Russians? It’s not an either / or situation. Hard pass on that kind of reductio ad absurdum..Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:33 am Why do I feel like the only reason democrats (and I'm using a very broad brush here because I listen to Pod Save America) are pissed at Comey is sour grapes over Clinton losing the election? As if her winning would have avoided an eventual circus. The administration would be radically different and we wouldn't have had the tax cut. We'd probably have a stagnant Congress anyway but the cabinet would be filled with better people.
There was a very targeted and insidious campaign by Russian hackers and trolls to bombard Facebook walls and social media platforms of specific people with propagandist information to throw a wrench into the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and Russia disliked her greatly. Their weight was thrown behind the GOP. Trump ended up winning by 72k votes amongst 3 battleground states that felt left behind by Democrats. Nearly 3 million more people voted Clinton when all was said and done.
Soon....Comey's memo reopening the investigation into Hillary threw the election according to well informed dudes like those on PSA? That seems like a convenient scapegoat. Maybe Comey should have waited, sure and it probably played a factor. But to act as though there weren't other forces at work trying to get Trump elected is horse shit. Everyone just assumed Clinton would win anyway.
You're making the mistake of playing a zero sum game here. There's absolutely a case to throw Comey and his fucking bullshit maneuver INTO THE MIX of things that allowed Trump to happen. All of what you said (shitty candidate, Russian hacking, bad campaign tactics) PLUS what Comey did. This was the cliched perfect storm and Comey absolutely played a part.Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:33 am Why do I feel like the only reason democrats (and I'm using a very broad brush here because I listen to Pod Save America) are pissed at Comey is sour grapes over Clinton losing the election? As if her winning would have avoided an eventual circus. The administration would be radically different and we wouldn't have had the tax cut. We'd probably have a stagnant Congress anyway but the cabinet would be filled with better people.
There was a very targeted and insidious campaign by Russian hackers and trolls to bombard Facebook walls and social media platforms of specific people with propagandist information to throw a wrench into the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and Russia disliked her greatly. Their weight was thrown behind the GOP. Trump ended up winning by 72k votes amongst 3 battleground states that felt left behind by Democrats. Nearly 3 million more people voted Clinton when all was said and done.
Soon....Comey's memo reopening the investigation into Hillary threw the election according to well informed dudes like those on PSA? That seems like a convenient scapegoat. Maybe Comey should have waited, sure and it probably played a factor. But to act as though there weren't other forces at work trying to get Trump elected is horse shit. Everyone just assumed Clinton would win anyway.
Thanks for articulating this in response to Johnnie's post. I didn't have the time to do so. Comey's flawed in many ways, but that doesn't mean that he's wrong about Trump. Both things can be true.Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:35 am On Comey, there’s also this:
In addition to having pretty right-wing views on criminal justice issues, Comey has also been criticized for the FBI’s go-to practice of manufacturing a terror plot, drawing in one or more mentally unstable Muslim-Americans who had no intent or ability to carry out such an act themselves, and then calling it a “terrorism arrest.”
But for the Pod Save America guys, and most other partisan Dems, I doubt that stuff even registers and opposition probably is all about the Clinton investigation. Comey certainly can be criticized for that, but at the same time he’s given coherent (if not entirely satisfying) explanations for his actions. And frankly, stuff like that happening was always a risk when the Dem establishment put all its eggs in the Clinton basket back in 2015, even though she was already under FBI investigation at that time.
Twitter is not helping out right now with some technical issues, but I saw a tweet this morning that a lawyer for some media outlet argued that the other client names should be released.The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:14 pmFrom what I've heard (I didn't read the actual court documents), the Government argued Cohen was not acting as an attorney, therefore none of his communications are privileged. Cohen argued he was acting as an attorney to several clients, then the Judge requested he provided the names of his clients, and she refused to keep the names confidential. I don't understand the rationale for publicising the names of clients, but even the Trump supporting pundits are all saying she is a fair judge with integrity. Interesting, I see she was a Reagan appointee. I didn't remember her name, but I do remember the scandal when Clinton appointed her for the Attorney General post. Clinton initially appointed Zoe Baird, but Baird withdrew over the (now quaint) scandal that she hired two illegal alien caretakers for their children and failed to pay proper payroll taxes. Wood was going to get the appointment next, but she also hired an illegal alien as a nanny.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:15 pm I think Judge Wood just messed up big time. There was no justification for forcing public disclosure of a secret attorney-client relationship. It may be a violation of Hannity's privilege. It's definitely a violation of Hannity's right to privacy.
If I were Cohen, I'd have refused to identify the client. If the judge found me in contempt, so be it.
I saw Judge Napolitano on Fox supporting Judge Wood's, and he bends pretty far to side with Trump most of the time. If Judge Napolitano says a ruling against Trump (or Cohen in this case) is correct, I'm confident.
didn't Cohen say he had three clients? Trump, Broidy and Client X (Hannity)DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:28 amTwitter is not helping out right now with some technical issues, but I saw a tweet this morning that a lawyer for some media outlet argued that the other client names should be released.The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:14 pmFrom what I've heard (I didn't read the actual court documents), the Government argued Cohen was not acting as an attorney, therefore none of his communications are privileged. Cohen argued he was acting as an attorney to several clients, then the Judge requested he provided the names of his clients, and she refused to keep the names confidential. I don't understand the rationale for publicising the names of clients, but even the Trump supporting pundits are all saying she is a fair judge with integrity. Interesting, I see she was a Reagan appointee. I didn't remember her name, but I do remember the scandal when Clinton appointed her for the Attorney General post. Clinton initially appointed Zoe Baird, but Baird withdrew over the (now quaint) scandal that she hired two illegal alien caretakers for their children and failed to pay proper payroll taxes. Wood was going to get the appointment next, but she also hired an illegal alien as a nanny.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:15 pm I think Judge Wood just messed up big time. There was no justification for forcing public disclosure of a secret attorney-client relationship. It may be a violation of Hannity's privilege. It's definitely a violation of Hannity's right to privacy.
If I were Cohen, I'd have refused to identify the client. If the judge found me in contempt, so be it.
I saw Judge Napolitano on Fox supporting Judge Wood's, and he bends pretty far to side with Trump most of the time. If Judge Napolitano says a ruling against Trump (or Cohen in this case) is correct, I'm confident.
Yes. Typo by me.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:22 pmdidn't Cohen say he had three clients? Trump, Broidy and Client X (Hannity)DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:28 amTwitter is not helping out right now with some technical issues, but I saw a tweet this morning that a lawyer for some media outlet argued that the other client names should be released.The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:14 pmFrom what I've heard (I didn't read the actual court documents), the Government argued Cohen was not acting as an attorney, therefore none of his communications are privileged. Cohen argued he was acting as an attorney to several clients, then the Judge requested he provided the names of his clients, and she refused to keep the names confidential. I don't understand the rationale for publicising the names of clients, but even the Trump supporting pundits are all saying she is a fair judge with integrity. Interesting, I see she was a Reagan appointee. I didn't remember her name, but I do remember the scandal when Clinton appointed her for the Attorney General post. Clinton initially appointed Zoe Baird, but Baird withdrew over the (now quaint) scandal that she hired two illegal alien caretakers for their children and failed to pay proper payroll taxes. Wood was going to get the appointment next, but she also hired an illegal alien as a nanny.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:15 pm I think Judge Wood just messed up big time. There was no justification for forcing public disclosure of a secret attorney-client relationship. It may be a violation of Hannity's privilege. It's definitely a violation of Hannity's right to privacy.
If I were Cohen, I'd have refused to identify the client. If the judge found me in contempt, so be it.
I saw Judge Napolitano on Fox supporting Judge Wood's, and he bends pretty far to side with Trump most of the time. If Judge Napolitano says a ruling against Trump (or Cohen in this case) is correct, I'm confident.
maybe he is so busy fixing things for Trump it is a fulltime job