The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)

[The Sybian]

Weird question...but is it odd to only have three clients? Or is that normal when you have high profile guys? Or are these three the ones who were "material" to the current investigation, so no one else in his client base was affected?

My understanding is that Cohen isn't really practicing law, but doing shady "fixer" shit. The Government argued Cohen isn't practicing law, which is why he claimed to have 3 clients. I think the Judge called Cohen's bluff and asked for proof. That, and Cohen tried to protect communications with or documents related to Hannity, so he claimed Hannity requested to remain anonymous while invoking his attorney-client privilege. I've seen some pundits claiming Hannity agreed to say he was a client to protect Cohen, but they didn't think his name would be publicly announced. I tend to believe Hannity was working with Cohen for Trump's benefit, most likely with Assange.

[Pruitt]

Stormy Daniels: The Sequel

[Pruitt]

[Johnnie]

There's gotta be a Photoshop at this point of a Slim 'Shadey' Comey.

[sancarlos]

[The Sybian]

The Pod Saves guys made a great point; most of Trump's defenders make arguments based on the assumption Trump has committed crimes. They attack the means of how the evidence was gathered and call everyone gathering info corrupt, but very few people say Trump is innocent. They say his crimes don't matter, because they occurred before he was President, or say "nobody cares," but very rarely do they say Trump conducted business above-board, or that he complies with ethics as President. They say "no collusion with Russia," but that's all they deny.

[Pruitt]

Awesome Times Article About Cohen

Speculating that Cohen will flip while making him seem like a loser in Trump's eyes.

Mr. Stone recalled Mr. Trump saying of Mr. Cohen, “He owns some of the finest Trump real estate in the country — paid top dollar for it, too.” In Mr. Trump’s worldview, there are few insults more devastating than saying someone overpaid.

The President is not pleased...

[brian]

I think one of my favorite stories to come out after this administration is just how much Melania loathes Trump.

[P.D.X.]

so alpha

[EnochRoot]

I think one of my favorite stories to come out after this administration is just how much Melania loathes Trump.

That was awesome haha..

We just saw a few pictures of her at relative ease, laughing with a certain ex-president this past weekend. While she's no saint herself, I'm sure she reminded herself of the difference of laughing with someone else for the joy of it, rather than alongside a deeply paranoid man at the expense of others.

[Pruitt]

All things considered though, she chose a good client.

[P.D.X.]

We just saw a few pictures of her at relative ease, laughing with a certain ex-president this past weekend. While she's no saint herself, I'm sure she reminded herself of the difference of laughing with someone else for the joy of it, rather than alongside a deeply paranoid man at the expense of others.

Yeah I'm really enjoying imagining how the mega-trolls interpreted that scene.

[The Sybian]

We just saw a few pictures of her at relative ease, laughing with a certain ex-president this past weekend. While she's no saint herself, I'm sure she reminded herself of the difference of laughing with someone else for the joy of it, rather than alongside a deeply paranoid man at the expense of others.

Yeah I'm really enjoying imagining how the mega-trolls interpreted that scene.

They will attack the messenger, as always, saying the Liberal Media hates Trump so much, they attack him for Melania pausing 2 seconds to hold his hand. They are the same people who cheered Hannity calling for Obama's impeachment because he wore a tan suit, and because when he and Michelle bumped fists, it proved they were members of a radical Islamic terror group. If the media spent days focused on this clip, sure, that's a problem, but a bunch of people making fun of it on Twitter isn't the same as an entire media outlet drumming up fear and anger.

[A_B]

OK, guys, help me understand the liberal outrage on this one, because I truly don't get it why this is something that some are calling a "scandal". Why is it bad that you can't use "secret science" anymore to craft regulations? Isn't it good that we know where data comes from and how it was arrived at?

I'm not asking to be a troll - there's a lot of shit this administration does that I am 100% out on - but I don't get this one.

[brian]

OK, guys, help me understand the liberal outrage on this one, because I truly don't get it why this is something that some are calling a "scandal". Why is it bad that you can't use "secret science" anymore to craft regulations? Isn't it good that we know where data comes from and how it was arrived at?

I'm not asking to be a troll - there's a lot of shit this administration does that I am 100% out on - but I don't get this one.

I'm not even sure to what you're referring to so I don't know how big of a "scandal" it is.

(Which isn't to say my being aware of it is some kind of prerequisite just saying I honestly don't know to what you're referring.)

[A_B]

OK, guys, help me understand the liberal outrage on this one, because I truly don't get it why this is something that some are calling a "scandal". Why is it bad that you can't use "secret science" anymore to craft regulations? Isn't it good that we know where data comes from and how it was arrived at?

I'm not asking to be a troll - there's a lot of shit this administration does that I am 100% out on - but I don't get this one.

I'm not even sure to what you're referring to so I don't know how big of a "scandal" it is.

(Which isn't to say my being aware of it is some kind of prerequisite just saying I honestly don't know to what you're referring.)

Oh, sorry. I probably see a bit more energy-related news than most so I had seen this before and then it cropped up on my twitter feed in a few places, so I assumed it was getting more traction.

It's an EPA rule to change how they craft regulations.

[brian]

Hmm. Read the article and I dunno. Pruitt's obviously a bad actor on a lot of levels, so it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, but on its face doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, but not being anything close to a scientist I don't know.

I think the biggest thing to know would be specifically the kinds of scientific research this would eliminate as being used in environmental regulations. But my understanding of most all "real" science is that it basically involves shared research and peer review anyway, which would seem to fall under the umbrella of "not secret science".

[A_B]

Hmm. Read the article and I dunno. Pruitt's obviously a bad actor on a lot of levels, so it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, but on its face doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, but not being anything close to a scientist I don't know.

I think the biggest thing to know would be specifically the kinds of scientific research this would eliminate as being used in environmental regulations. But my understanding of most all "real" science is that it basically involves shared research and peer review anyway, which would seem to fall under the umbrella of "not secret science".

That's my general thought as well. Just wondered if I was missing something obvious. Might be that I've seen more about it lately simply because Pruitt has been everpresent in news.

[The Sybian]

OK, guys, help me understand the liberal outrage on this one, because I truly don't get it why this is something that some are calling a "scandal". Why is it bad that you can't use "secret science" anymore to craft regulations? Isn't it good that we know where data comes from and how it was arrived at?

I'm not asking to be a troll - there's a lot of shit this administration does that I am 100% out on - but I don't get this one.

I haven't heard much about this, other than the fear of what the rule might be, as Pruitt did not let on what the rule would be until just before the announcement, and Pruitt banned reporters and only invited climate deniers and conspiracy theorists to attend the event in which he would declare the new rule. I just heard someone make a snarky comment about announcing a "transparency in science act," but keeping the details secret and banning reporters and scientists. I haven't read or heard any critique about the actual law since it was announced, but considering Pruitt's sole mission is removing environmental protections and ignoring science, I'm not too optimistic that this rule will promote good science and environmental protection. I'm not making any judgment yet, and I am open to Pruitt doing something right, just skeptical.

[Nonlinear FC]

It's actually not all that complicated. A lot of research on the effect pollution has on PEOPLE requires confidentiality, which means they can't publish all of the data in the open.

This essentially eliminates wide swaths of the kind of research that proves that, you know, dumping shit into the water is bad, m'kay.

[brian]

It's actually not all that complicated. A lot of research on the effect pollution has on PEOPLE requires confidentiality, which means they can't publish all of the data in the open.

This essentially eliminates wide swaths of the kind of research that proves that, you know, dumping shit into the water is bad, m'kay.

They can't publish the data in the aggregate though? I understand why data relating to specific individuals or maybe even a specific area/city might have to be confidential/protected, but it still seems like most of the data on those cases are going to be in the open. Still, it sounds like something Pruitt/Trump/GOP would do would be to seize on something that has 99 percent open data and use the confidential 1 percent to insinuate that the science isn't accurate.

[Nonlinear FC]

It's actually not all that complicated. A lot of research on the effect pollution has on PEOPLE requires confidentiality, which means they can't publish all of the data in the open.

This essentially eliminates wide swaths of the kind of research that proves that, you know, dumping shit into the water is bad, m'kay.

They can't publish the data in the aggregate though? I understand why data relating to specific individuals or maybe even a specific area/city might have to be confidential/protected, but it still seems like most of the data on those cases are going to be in the open. Still, it sounds like something Pruitt/Trump/GOP would do would be to seize on something that has 99 percent open data and use the confidential 1 percent to insinuate that the science isn't accurate.

That's exactly what is going on here.

These guys aren't subtle and the media has done a very shitty job making this sound complicated when it's really not.

[Nonlinear FC]

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but if you ever have a question about something that seems complicated, check out Vox.

You may not agree with everything or the conclusions they lead you to make... But it's almost always pretty straight-forward and not junked up with a lot of partisan, over-the-top language.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... egulations

The bottom line is that EVERYTHING Pruitt has done is to roll back not just regulations, but to take the scientists and research out of the EPA's processes.

It's fucking maddening. He is rolling us back to the 70s when our rivers literally burned from toxic waste and smog was killing people. It's insanity, it really is.

[Nonlinear FC]

The idea is to exclude studies that aren’t reproducible or don’t make their underlying data public, standards that would bar research based on one-off events like toxic chemical leaks or experiments involving confidential patient data.

“The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of [the] rulemaking process,” Pruitt said in a statement. “Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”

However, documents released to various news organizations under Freedom of Information Act requests also show that Smith’s office coordinated with the EPA to carve out exemptions to allow industry-backed research to still be considered by the agency.

Which means industry-friendly science could weaken the case for developing new rules and undermine the rationale for existing regulations. For instance, stricter limits on pollutants like ozone may not go into effect and the EPA may not have the foundations to tackle emerging environmental health threats like the harm from newly introduced chemicals.

Smith is the shitbird that is leaving, but pushed similar legislation this year.

And, look, I work for a water company. If you start eliminating new chemicals from even the possibility of regulation, it WILL have devastating effects.

[brian]

President Deals keeps digging his grave every time he opens his stupid mouth.

[Johnnie]

This is unreal.

[The Sybian]

I love when Trump's own words finally get used against him. His whole life, he has gotten away with lying, cheating, stealing,... I get such satisfaction seeing him finally have consequences for his bullshit.

[P.D.X.]

It's so cute how they all pretend he isn't a raving lunatic.

[The Sybian]

This is unreal.

Presidential! He sounds like a 6 year old caught lying and trying to talk their way out of getting in trouble.

I just love when Trump supporters accuse people of being sore losers who need to get over Hillary losing when they say we need to let the investigations play out. Meanwhile, Trump can't talk about anything without attacking Hillary.

[Johnnie]

Like 9 Reddit posts are of his unhinged ranting right now. It's hilarious.

I just want off this ride.

[mister d]

The word consequences should be in quotes, Syb.

[sancarlos]

The word consequences should be in quotes, Syb.

I like it better when you say, "maybe this is what does him in!"

[mister d]

That was only for as long as people here thought it could happen. Its targeted usage.

[DaveInSeattle]

Here's what the real impeachable offense it:

[Nonlinear FC]

It's not like ANYWHERE considers that jambalaya. I would be hella pissed if they said that was on the menu and seasoned rice showed up, because I like a good jambalaya.

[P.D.X.]

Pauvre Macron.

[brian]

It's not like ANYWHERE considers that jambalaya. I would be hella pissed if they said that was on the menu and seasoned rice showed up, because I like a good jambalaya.

Essentially it sounds like what they served is dirty rice, but I guess they can't list that on the menu for a White House state dinner without setting off some kind of diplomatic incident.

[Nonlinear FC]

It's not like ANYWHERE considers that jambalaya. I would be hella pissed if they said that was on the menu and seasoned rice showed up, because I like a good jambalaya.

Essentially it sounds like what they served is dirty rice, but I guess they can't list that on the menu for a White House state dinner without setting off some kind of diplomatic incident.

So call it something fancy like Spiced Rice or some shit.

I know this is dumb and I don't REALLY care, but...

It's not like they said we're serving Gumbo and then served Jambalaya. That's a pretty big mistake, but almost understandable. (They're pretty close, save for the okra and some different kinds of spices and stuff.)

But rice with spices just isn't even in the same zip code. It's farther in culinary distance than NYC-style pizza and Chicago deep dish.

Jambalaya has moving parts, but it straight up has to have sausage and then at least one other kind of meat (chicken, pork, scrump.)

This is the kind of shit my vegetarian mom used to pull. You can't just call something and will it into being. "No, mom, this is not a cheeseburger. It's fucking tofu with cheese on it. And it tastes like a sponge."

[brian]

Eh Krassenstein isn’t really the most reliable source.

Please ignore this guy (Krassenstein). He sucks.

[rass]

His handlers need a shock collar for when his eyes stray from the TelePrompTer.