The Swamp

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:25 pm After this tweet, the internet was like "there's a word for this?"

Probably going to be word of the year, honestly.

Just learned that too. (It means "rule by the worst," btw.)

Not to be confused with khakistocracy, which is rule by lame suburban dads.

Johnny Carwash wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:18 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:25 pm After this tweet, the internet was like "there's a word for this?"

Probably going to be word of the year, honestly.

Just learned that too. (It means "rule by the worst," btw.)

Not to be confused with khakistocracy, which is rule by lame suburban dads.

I thought it might mean rule by shitheads (cacastocracy}

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:51 pm Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency

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.

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.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:45 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:51 pm Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency

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.

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.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Love this cited article about Cohen:
US Attorney’s office to Michael Cohen: You’re hardly a lawyer

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:26 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:45 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:51 pm Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency

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.

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.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Love this cited article about Cohen:
US Attorney’s office to Michael Cohen: You’re hardly a lawyer

Don’t read the whack-a-mole comments below the article. Yikes.

Sunday Morning - Trump has put out 7 tweets in two hours.

On top of everything else, don;t people expect more from their President than to have him watch TV and spew invective onto Twitter for hours.

(Rhetorical, I know.)

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:29 am Sunday Morning - Trump has put out 7 tweets in two hours.

On top of everything else, don;t people expect more from their President than to have him watch TV and spew invective onto Twitter for hours.

(Rhetorical, I know.)

But her emails

Holy fuck.

Yglesias is so great. In case you've never met the guy or seen him or whatever, he can kill you with acerbic wit and sarcasm.

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'm sorry Steve, I am mostly just giggling. Every so often, on very rare days, twitter doesn't make me sad. This is one of those days:

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.

The lawyers on CNN were stunned at how Cohen's laywers handled the entire thing. But they were coming at it from the angle that once Cohen's lawyers were being so strident in protecting the material as privileged, the judge was in a position to force Cohen to release Hannity's name.

I don't fully understand the rationale, but somewhere in the motions to protect material, they apparently opened themselves up to this outcome.

I can promise you this was a massive lawyer fuck up/miscalculation from Cohen's side, and if they opened the door, I have no doubt Judge Wood would go right through.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:05 am

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:53 pm Saw Pod Save America live tonight. The wife listens to it every week. Good show.

You got me excited for a new episode. Not up yet :(

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.

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.

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.

From The Atlantic:

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.

So the real "big deal" here is just the assumption that Cohen probably did dirty shit for Hannity as well, right? Cuz I need more than it just being more evidence of him being a hack tv shill.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:51 pm So the real "big deal" here is just the assumption that Cohen probably did dirty shit for Hannity as well, right? Cuz I need more than it just being more evidence of him being a hack tv shill.

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.

And here's what it looked like outside the courtroom today, as reporters went to file the story of Hannity being 'Client #3'.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:51 pm So the real "big deal" here is just the assumption that Cohen probably did dirty shit for Hannity as well, right? Cuz I need more than it just being more evidence of him being a hack tv shill.

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.

The ineptitude of Cohen and his team just keeps adding layers. They (and Hannity) are trying to argue that Cohen didn't represent Hannity, while at the same time arguing that their conversations are privileged. Hannity said he never sought legal advice from Cohen, but then he said he gave Cohen $10 and asked for legal services so he could have privilege. Hannity has made an extremely lucrative career getting away with arguing shit that has no logical consistency, but that shit doesn't fly in federal court when you are fighting against US Attorneys.

I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that Hannity lacks journalistic integrity. For anyone else, it would be a huge hit to their credibility to learn that they were adamantly defending Cohen all this time without disclosing that he was one of the 3 clients Cohen worked for, and was therefore intimately tied to the warrants to search Cohen's shit. On the plus side, Hannity is getting called out by numerous Fox Pundits already, and was sabotaged by Dershowitz of all people:

And on the lighter side, Alex Jones emotionally breaks up with Trump.

Jesus, this is nourishment for my soul.



Is this what a 'Deep State' looks like? Because it looks like shit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The fact that many in the media are painting him as some white knight brimming with unassailable integrity is VERY GRATING when he hasn't truly owned up to his role in fucking up the republic with unprecedented fucking bullshit days before a national election. It was an absolutely devastating hit to the Clinton campaign.

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.

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.

ETA - What EnochRoot and Nonlinear said too.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:14 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:28 am

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:14 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

didn't Cohen say he had three clients? Trump, Broidy and Client X (Hannity)

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:22 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:28 am

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:14 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

didn't Cohen say he had three clients? Trump, Broidy and Client X (Hannity)

Yes. Typo by me.

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?

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:04 pm 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?

maybe he is so busy fixing things for Trump it is a fulltime job

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:04 pm 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?

These 3 were the ones deemed material, and I believe there are 8 more in this time frame (since beginning of 2017, I think).

Prior to 2017, I'm pretty sure he's had "hundreds" of other clients over the last 10 years or so. I know I've read that a couple of times.

I'll let some of our real-life lawyers answer, but I can see a situation where is essentially Trump Inc and Trump Orgs general counsel, and would have little need to have a substantial client base beyond that. I know our GCO here isn't even allowed other clients due to conflict of interest issues (govt agency, so rules are probably different.)

So, even that was not a formal GCO arrangement, I don't think a small client base is all that odd. I do think where Cohen is getting caught up is how he was actually generating his income. If he wasn't on Trump's payroll, where was his money coming from?

Three clients is rare, but not unheard of at all. In house counsel only have one client.

Cohen doesn't make his money in the Law business. He's heavily involved in taxi medallions business in New York, as well as real estate. Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.com has reported a lot on his business dealings.

That's why it was so weird that he took out a home-equity line of credit to pay off Stormy Daniels. The guy is a millionaire, many times over. Its not like he's a middle class guy looking to remodel a kitchen or something.