Sunday Open Thread

Italy is holding elections today. I wonder who is paying for Steve Bannon to be there?

Donald Trump is running for President again in 2020. Jared made a big announcement that Brad Parscale, the former website builder turned digital strategist and Facebook ad expert who unearthed Trump's underinformed, margainalized rural voters, will chair the re-election committee. The Trump campaign's digital marketing effort is still being investigated by Mueller and congressional committees. Parscale was tapped by Kushner for his role in the 2016 campaign. Now, he's brought Lara Trump on board for the 2020 campaign.

Homeowners at a Trump-managed hotel/condo in Panama City are fighting to get him out, claiming the Trump Org. has mismanaged the property and driven down occupancy rates and the value of their units.

I still like this article on the buyers who got nothing from a planned Trump Org. hotel in Baja, that never got built. People bought in because they believed he was developing the project. Ivanka Trump refuted that Trump Org. claimed to develop the property as opposed to just licensing its name, and said the Trump Org. was also a victim. I think the buyer's quoted in the article are more convincing.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome. Vent at your own pace. I'll put up another one in a few hours for the Oscars.

< The Many Travails of Jared Kushner | Oscars Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting article (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    in the New Yorker about Christopher Steele. Most interesting part to me was the fact that Trump was all set to pick Romney for SOS and then Putin intervened because he wanted someone more Russian friendly. So that is one of the reasons we got Rexxon.

    That really is good (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    Gabriel García Márquez (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 07:37:13 AM EST
    Gets a Google doodle on his birthday

    LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA is one of my favorite books ever.

    I read "One Hundred Years (none / 0) (#68)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    of Solitude" many years ago and the memory of it has stayed with me.

    At this point... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    "Key Pruitt Aid Gets Approval to Consult For Secret Private Clients"

    A key aide to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has been granted permission to make extra money moonlighting for private clients whose identities are being kept secret.

    ...the US government has been turned into nothing more than a criminal enterprise.  It's a smash and grab operationl

    Gary Cohn RESIGNS (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    Over tariff nonsense

    Hahahahaha! He was gone as Baghdad Bob (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    Stood at the podium and said everyone wants to work at the White House.

    Nice Nazis (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    Was not a problem but tariffs are

    Bolton met with Trump today (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 06:17:20 PM EST
    OMG and Trump is encouraging (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    The Mooch to continue going around calling John Kelly General jackass.



    Sanctuary cities. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    Funny how GOPers like push for 'states rights' until they don't.

    My opinion (none / 0) (#118)
    by linea on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    While I wholeheartedly support Seattle's sanctuary city laws as good social policy and good policing, the recent State of California laws appear to be overtly hostile to Federal law enforcement and clearly place private business and individual persons in a difficult situation of either disobeying Federal police or subjecting themselves to penalties under State law.

    My opinion, if the district court doesn't side with DOJ, then SCOTUS most certainly will. Especially given the previous ruling on a similar matter under the Obama administration.


    • AB 450 prohibits private employers from cooperating with federal immigration officials and requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection. DOJ claims that this forces California employers to be caught between state and federal law. Business owners could be fined $2,000 to $10,000 for failing to comply with AB 450.

    • SB 54 prevents local law enforcement from providing information to federal authorities about the release date of undocumented immigrants who are in their custody and bans the transfer of these criminal immigrants to federal custody. This breaks federal law that pertains to communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, DOJ officials said.

    • AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review of the federal detention of immigrants held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts and includes a review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which immigrants were apprehended. This review applies only to facilities with civil immigration detainees. The law seeks to regulate federal immigration detention, according to the complaint, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

    The news anchors are having way too much (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:45:29 AM EST
    Fun with their openings. John Berman opened his slot by saying, "Today the White House is juggling tariffs and p0rn stars just as the framers intended."

    Stormys lawyer (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:53:16 AM EST
    "Stormys lawyer is hot" .....and funny! (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    Isn't he? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 09:17:25 AM EST
    He's flat out yummy

    But the real test of yumminess ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    ... will be how his liver tastes when I serve it with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

    According to Armando and another attorney (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 09:46:03 AM EST
    In his threads today, an arbitration decision doesn't become an order until it goes before a sitting judge. That doesn't seem to have occurred in Stormy's case.

    I don't know how you have a valid (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    arbitration when one of the parties isn't notified of the hearing and isn't present and given an opportunity to speak.

    I think perhaps what Cohen obtained was a temporary restraining order, but again, it was done covertly.

    Are we surprised?  Not that Cohen, on Trump's behalf, did all this on the down low, but I think it's kind of hilarious, really, the rhetorical knots Cohen has tied himself and Trump into over this.  Why do you have an NDA for something you deny happened?  why do you pay money to someone you didn't have an affair with?  Well, other than the likely fact that there are way more women out there who have been paid off.

    I'm sure that lying sack of doody known as the press secretary will have more lies to tell today.

    Honestly, I'd love to see this suit move forward.


    I have committed to buying her book (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    And the movie

    Go Stormy!


    You may wish to specify... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    which movie, considering the subject matter, lest people get the wrong idea lol.

    Her film (none / 0) (#174)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    ...that she masde with the zebra will stand for all time as a classic of its genre.

    And fun, yes (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    Jonathan Turley just compared their strategy in the Daniels case to thinking if you close your eyes no one can see you.

    The local newspaper (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 06:25:26 PM EST
    ...might as well give me a daily column, "Three Sentences to Drive a Nail."  Sometimes I go a little over or under, but brevity is my trademark.

    1. Context
    2. Premise
    3. Response.

    Today's published effort:

    Trump should have made conservatives cringe

    All through the Barack Obama presidency, conservatives whipped each other up with the sure knowledge that Obama was coming for their guns, even though he never said he would.

    Last week, President Donald Trump actually said those words, suggesting the collection of weapons without due process.

    By the standards established during the Obama presidency, that should have sent the right wing of the nation into an outrage, with calls for impeachment, but the response was more like a collective sigh.

    It seems that conservatives have tacitly agreed that nothing the man says needs to be taken seriously.

    I do not feel reassured.

    Connor Lamb (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 03:34:34 PM EST
    Can't believe I'm saying it but linea may have a point.

    I believe many positions are being taken to win.

    Plus, a majority is a majority.

    Surely by now we known what that means

    Study suggests schools are safter today (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    than they were in the 90s.
    "There is not an epidemic of school shootings," he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel's research.

    Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, James Alan Fox, isn't against certain gun control proprosals, like banning bump stocks but, like me, he doesn't think they will do much good.

    "The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround," Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.

    I'm suprised (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by linea on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 05:22:26 PM EST
    That you would offer `more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents` and `(only) about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school` as serious arguments when the logical incoherence is so evident. It's like arguing that we shouldn't bother researching a cure for breast cancer because more females die in automobile accidents or arguing that small cities with fewer than ten murders a year should disband their police departments.

    Banning hump-stocks, tightening background checks, and raising the age to twenty-one are all goods things.


    But will they save lives? (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    I'm willing to try but I'm not very optimistic.

    One thing I have believed in, long before I read the article, is generally speaking, school is a safe place for kids.  I don't believe there's an epidemic of kids being shot at school.  Just like I don't believe there's an epidemic of police violence against unarmed black men.  Just like I don't believe in a rape culture on college campus.

    The media tends to whip people into a frenzy on these topics. Sometimes it's important to take a step back and look at the big picture. We live in a pretty good country.  


    Beliefs are nice (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 07:20:56 PM EST
    "Epidemic" is a loaded/strawman term, especially for events that may be statistically unusual or rare like school shootings or terrorist attacks, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to prevent them.  It's also pretty easy to dismiss very serious problems like campus rape and police shootings of unarmed black men if you happen to be a white male.

    I absolutely agree with you on this (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    I don't believe there's an epidemic of police violence against unarmed black men.

    It's not epidemic, it's endemic. The violence by police against black men is exactly what it has always been. Extreme, and the police get away with it.

    What is "epidemic" is video cameras in every pocket, and video that makes it possible to put the event on the evening news.

    I didn't need video on YouTube to learn this, I have enough black friends that I got to see how much differently they are treated by police than you are.


    And there is not an epidemic (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    of crime by the undocumented?

    Willing to so state?


    Good comparison (none / 0) (#9)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    I don't have a strong opinion about the immigration debate.  My guess is it's not an epidemic. Not yet at least.  You?

    No, it is not an epidemic (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 10:54:28 AM EST
    What he said (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    Mr. Fox said some policy changes could lead to an overall decrease in gun violence, such as banning "bump stocks" and raising the age of purchase for assault rifles from 18 to 21. But he doesn't believe such measures will prevent all school shootings.

    This always seems like such a ridiculous, strawman argument.  Absolutely no one thinks stronger gun control laws will prevent "all" school shootings.  But decreasing gun violence generally and some school shootings?  I'm good with that.


    Since schyool shootings (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    ...seem to be confined to the United States alone, why not see what the countries where these events don't take place are doing differently, and do what they do?

    If someone else does something better than you do, don't you try to emulate their methods?


    And do what exactly? (none / 0) (#16)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    we're not going to ban all guns.  Banning certain types of guns might save a few lives.  Arming teaches might save a few lives.  There isn't any realistic solution that's going to make big difference to a problem that's overblown by the media.

    Dead kids. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    Overblown by the media? Wow. Just wow. Welcome to the basket of deplorables.

    Are you willing to give up your guns (none / 0) (#30)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    to try to save lives?  Many people aren't.  The real conversation that no one wants to have is about how much is a life worth?  Which rights/freedoms should be given up to save one life? 100? 1000?  

    You are right that most people don't (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    "want" to have a serious conversation about the costs of strict enforcement of individual rights. In fact, few people are interested in serious conversations about any subject at all. But those of us who are serious about rights have often participated in such discussions. In the present context, you appear to be assuming that the virtually unregulated private possession of firearms designed to kill large numbers of other people in a short period of time is in fact a "right" that Americans enjoy. To my knowledge neither the Supreme Court nor the lower courts have ever agreed with that proposition.

    It would seem reasonable (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    to ground conversations in what is known and what can be learned.  Both, have, in effect, been made off limits by Republicans.

       For example, a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons was in effect from 1994 to 2004.  The results of the ten-year ban are mixed owing, in my view, to incomplete evaluations and contamination by loop holes such as "get around " manufacturer modifications, and grandfathering of existing weapons.

     Moreover, serious study by the CDC as a public health menace has been proscribed, in essence, for over twenty years.


    I would consider it. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 06:45:19 PM EST
    But no one is calling for that. Not even the kids from Parkland. Two of the boys were on Maher Friday night. They reiterated that. That's the NRA lie that you seem to want to proliferate.

    They (we?) are asking for controls on types of weapons. Or magazine sizes. No one needs an AR-15 or similar type long guns. They are not hunting rifles. No one would go deer hunting with an .223 rifle. I own a .357 lever action rifle. Kind of a saddle gun. But it holds a maximum of 8 rounds. You have to manually eject the cartridge and reload with the lever. Same with bolt action rifles. A rifle like that is a good home defense weapon, a hunting rifle. But I certainly could not walk into a gathering of people and kill 17 of them in short order with that rifle.

    I owned a Chinese SKS for about minute once. I bought it at a gun show. It had folding bayonet no less. I never fired it. Sold it within 2 months. I came to realize it was a ridiculous purchase and served no purpose to own.

    Something has to change. And saying we shouldn't do anything or try to change things is just plain ignorant. Your right to own a gun, or specifically, guns designed for police/military purposes, does not trump my right to live in a peaceful, civil society. It does not trump a kids right to make it home from school alive. No one's 2nd Amendment rights outweighs my right to life.

    There is something to be said for age and wisdom. It seems to me that you are younger than most that post here and maybe, just maybe you will gain some wisdom with age, because you are sorely lacking much of that now.

    I once belonged to the NRA. I didn't believe in any gun control laws. I believed that because we have so many guns out there now, nothing could be done. But I got older and wiser. I got tired of reading about carnage like Columbine or Sandy Hook. The culture of guns in America has to change. And banning some kinds of guns may just be the right place to start.


    I think you meant to say (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    No on engaged in a realistic discussion/debate is calling for the banning of all guns.  There are plenty of people who do want that. We both know it's not going to happen anytime soon.
    That's the NRA lie that you seem to want to proliferate.

    I'm not a gun person and have nothing to do with the NRA.
    Your right to own a gun, or specifically, guns designed for police/military purposes, does not trump my right to live in a peaceful, civil society. It does not trump a kids right to make it home from school alive.

    Those guns aren't a major cause of childhood death. It's not clear to me that banning them would have a significant impact on reducing school shooting tragedies.
    It seems to me that you are younger than most that post here and maybe, just maybe you will gain some wisdom with age, because you are sorely lacking much of that now.

    Yet somehow, I'm one of the few in here who avoids emotional rants, personal attacks and insults.  

    Why does it just have to be (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    about childhood death?  Or school shootings?

    And what would a "significant" impact look like?  How many fewer kids would have to die to make it significant?

    Here's what I don't understand: do you know how many people died when bottles of Tylenol were tampered with and capsules were poisoned?  Seven.  There were a couple more copycat incidents, with a few more deaths.

    And what happened as a result?  Tamper-proof packaging industry-wide.  For what you would deem an "insignificant" number of deaths.  You can't buy any medication that isn't packaged in such as way as to avoid or prevent tampering.

    We have seat belts in cars and laws that require their use.  Cars are manufactured with air bags.

    There are tens of thousands of gun-related deaths every year, and because we have a 2nd Amendment, we're just supposed to accept that as the price of freedom.

    Well, that just seems kind of stupid to me.  The 2nd Amendment doesn't bar regulation, and it doesn't even prohibit the banning of certain weapons.  

    And I think it bears some thought and discussion about the amount of money that is spent to prevent the kinds of regulations that could save lives.

    This isn't the Wild West, and I think it's time we stopped acting like we needed it to be because...guns!


    Actually, a lot of the towns in the old (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    "Wild West" had stricter gun control laws than many of them have today.


    Tombstone, Dodge City, Deadwood, Abilene, among others.

    "Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today," says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. "Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't." Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

    Good question (none / 0) (#75)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    And what would a "significant" impact look like?  How many fewer kids would have to die to make it significant?

    We're supposed to say saving one life would be significant enough to make a change.  I haven't crunched the numbers but I'd like to know what the relative risk is of a child dying from AR-15 type weapons.  Lots of kids go to school.

    I'd also like to see an honest projection of how many lives would be saved if AR-15s became illegal to own.

    Here's what I don't understand: do you know how many people died when bottles of Tylenol were tampered with and capsules were poisoned?  Seven.  There were a couple more copycat incidents, with a few more deaths.

    And what happened as a result?  Tamper-proof packaging industry-wide.

    And opening a bottle of Tylenol became a pain for those with certain disabilities.  In my opinion, the reaction to that scare was an overreaction.

    What does it matter (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    if it is a "major" cause of childhood death? That is asinine. The point is gun violence is a possibly preventable cause of childhood death. Recent history proves that out. By your reasoning, we should give up medical research on any disease that isn't a "major" cause of death.

    Never said you were a gun person or an NRA member. I merely said you were proliferating the NRAs lie of a threat of a complete gun ban.

    Stop swooning with faux outrage from imagined falsehoods you somehow read into other peoples statements.


    To tolerate the violence of it (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    Is to have no social boundaries for violence. And leads to an overall escalation in all violence.

    Wrong again Chuck (none / 0) (#73)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    The point is gun violence is a possibly preventable cause of childhood death. Recent history proves that out. By your reasoning, we should give up medical research on any disease that isn't a "major" cause of death.

    I already said I'm willing to try certain measures like banning bump stocks or improving background checks.  I just don't think they will do much good. My main point is there isn't an epidemic of school shootings.  

    You and others read into that as I'm against trying something.



    You do emotional rants all the time (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    they're just done in the service of what is, IMO, a libertarian world view where we're all only responsible for ourselves and there are no commonalities that a group can exploit to improve its lot.

    As evidenced by:

    I'm not a gun person and have nothing to do with the NRA.

    Why then are you arguing then with people that DO have a problem w/the NRA and/or guns?


    Can you provide some evidence that I (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    "do emotional rants all the time"?

    I'm not perfect but I do pretty good job of keeping me cool in here despite a lot of negative feedback.


    I'm not going back through your posts (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 02:46:03 PM EST
    but will simply provide you with the

    Definition of emotion
    a obsolete : disturbance
    b : excitement
    a : the affective aspect of consciousness : feeling
    b : a state of feeling
    c : a conscious mental reaction (such as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

    Maybe refrain from getting all high and mighty and offended with folks when they push back on comments on a public blog.  Stop playing victim.  We're all just expressing here.  Usually civilly.


    I'm going to continue to talk about the (none / 0) (#79)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    cases and issues I find interesting.  I almost always stay within the rules of TL.  If you don't like my comments then don't read them.  If you're going to accuse me of something, back it up.  Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwith.  

    I never said you shouldn't (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    that's the point.  I can't avoid reading your comments because, wait for it, it's a public blog that I visit.

    Don't accuse others of being "emotional" because they disagree with you, sometimes vehemently.

    That is a waste of bandwidth.


    Uh, no, you don't (none / 0) (#168)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 05:06:50 PM EST
    Your sustained attack on Peter personally was particularly distasteful--and betrayed envy in my view.

    True (2.00 / 2) (#74)
    by linea on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    McBain stays pretty calm even when subjected to a barrage personal attacks and insults or when his stated position is being purposefully distorted and misrepresented.

    From the queen ... (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 08:50:45 PM EST
    ... of purposeful distortion and misrepresentation, that's pretty funny.

    So, what, just never mind then? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    First of all, it isn't like deaths-by-firearms are only occurring in school settings - they are happening everywhere, and one of the reasons for that is that guns are so easy to get.

    And it isn't like the 2nd Amendment won't accommodate regulation - but the NRA would have you believe that regulation is wrong, just wrong.  Easy enough to hide behind the 2nd Amendment to protect the huge financial benefit to gun and ammunition manufacturers, because almost no one believes the flood of guns in our country is going to be for national defense or to thwart a government takeover.

    I'm just over the consequence of elevating the rights of gun-owners above the rest of us, who really would like to be able to move about the country, live our lives, without fear of someone with more bullets than brains taking that away from us.

    We have rights, too.

    And what I am most tired of is people just shrugging their shoulders and deciding it's just too hard to do anything, so we'll just go with a status quo that is killing people every day.


    What's your solution? (none / 0) (#22)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:38:26 PM EST

    Isnt it odd how nobody (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    Is mass mudering people with assault weapons in the UK or Australia?

    But they aren't freeeeeeeee! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 03:06:21 PM EST
    This is America! We slaughter people every day in the name of freedom!

    It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment.


    The UK (none / 0) (#80)
    by linea on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    Tightened their gun ownership laws after the 1996 Dunblane school massacre.

    That same year in Australia, just six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in the UK, the Port Arthur massacre spurred a major revision to gun ownership laws in Australia.


    Interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    For some reason I had always thought the Milperra shootout between bikie clubs the Bandidos and Comancheros was responsible for Australia banning guns. Turns out that only changed the law regarding the open carry of shotguns. Good links linea. Learned something today.

    The guy is on right now (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    Giving an extended interview with Ari Melber.

    It's something to see.


    Opps (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    Wrong comment.   That was about the guy resisting Muellers subpoena

    The beginning of that chart (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    Tells a story about drug and gang violence, but they are predominantly single-victim incidents, not really mass shootings.  It's also worth mentioning that violent crime of all kinds is down significantly from that time, not specific to schools.

    The biggest challenge I'm having is the idea that since we've had a lot of school shootings in the last few decades, they're inevitable.  

    Really what this chart says to me is "we haven't done anything to prevent mass shootings, and therefore mass shootings haven't gone down".


    I realized this morning that we aren't (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    solving the mass-shooting problem the same way we aren't solving the health system problem: the powers-that-be keep insisting on operating from a position of protecting the corporate sector components of each instead of and at the expense of the lives/health of the people at the heart of it all.

    It simply doesn't matter that people are being killed - those lives are a fairly low cost of operating a tremendously profitable business.  And as long as it continues to make money, support for the 2nd Amendment will remain strong, but I don't believe the passion and fervor over constitutionally-protected gun rights would continue if it suddenly became a losing business.

    We are so stupid sometimes.  


    The guys are (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 07:11:43 PM EST
    Looking as fashionable as the ladies tonight.

    Oscar thread is up now (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 04, 2018 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    sorry it's late

    HOMELAND (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 10:25:23 AM EST

    It's getting good

    I'm watching (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    Enemigo Intimo on Telemundo. I watched 8 hour long episodes this weekend. It stars "Monica Robles" and "Chacorta" and Feyo from Senor de los Cielos. It's about a cop who goes overboard in trying to get a cartel leader and money launderer called "the Ghost". When the cop was a 10 years old, the cartel murdered his parents and kidnapped his four year old sister.  He has spent his life looking for her and trying to bust the cartels. Fast forward 25 years, and a mysterious woman is arrested after depositing 6 million in a bank in Zurich. She is the fiance of the money launderer and says she's innocent. She gets thrown in a horrendous prison to await trial. It's co-ed but they are housed in different units. The leader of the prison inmates (who also played Monica Robles' brother in Senor de los Cielos and a husband of Griselda Blanco in La Viuda Negra and of Kate del Castillo in Las Duenas del Paraiso) has a cult-like following, is referred to as "Mother" and is allowed by the warden to run the place, including carry out hits as he sees fit.

    The police captain is sure that the girlfriend thrown in jail can lead him to The Ghost, so he sends a rookie to infiltrate the prison and get close to her. They fall in love. But the counterpart to "Mother" who runs the woman's side of the prison, is making life very rough for her. There's a bit too much prison violence for me.

    Of course, the woman is the police captain's long-lost sister who was kidnapped and now has no past. And that's the story up through Chapter 8. It's on Monday to Friday nights, 9 pm ET.


    I'm really liking (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    The HBO series HERE AND NOW.

    couldn't really say what it's about.  But I like it


    In the news (none / 0) (#19)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    Former Trump campaign adviser Sam Nunberg is refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by Mueller to appear before his grand jury and produce emails. Nunberg stated, "Trump's right, it's a witch hunt. I'm not going to cooperate... I'm not going to go over my emails because a bunch of FBI agents and a bunch of US attorneys want to harass me."

    I found this information on grand jury subpoenas:

    Federal grand jury subpoenas are for (a) testimony (ad testificandum); (b) documents or objects (duces tecum); or (c) both.

    Not sure calling Mueller's bluff is the (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    smartest thing to do, but then, I can't say we've seen a proliferation of smart people since this whole thing started.

    People who think they are smart, sure, but people what actually are smart?  Not so much.


    My understanding (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    Not showing up or not producing the emails would likely result in a contempt of court charge.

    My advice (I'm not a lawyer):

    • For the grand jury subpoena duces tecum he should file a motion objecting to the exploratory search. That is, file with the `court on motion' to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the request is unreasonablely broad and that a search through his emails is essentially a `fishing expedition.'  This will delay the proceeding.
    • Irrespective of the court's adjudication of the duces tecum subpoena, before the grand jury invoke the 5th and refuse to present them.
    • For the grand jury subpoena ad testificandum he should show up, take the first question, speak to his attorney for an hour, return and invoke the 5th. Then repeat the process for each question.

    As a lawyer with some actual knowlege (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    on this subject, let me say:  (a) Tactics designed to cause delay, rather than to obtain an adjudication of a good-faith claim of legal rights, are unethical, potentially subject to professional sanctions on the attorney who asserts them, and even possibly a form of contempt of court. (b) The Fifth Amendment has extremely limited application to the production of pre-existing documents that the person was not compelled to create in the first place. (The latter, thanks to decisions of the Burger and Rehnquist (conservative Republican) Supreme Courts.)

    Well... (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 06:16:52 PM EST
    I'm reading that Nunberg had previously been interviewed be the Mueller team.

    Given that ANY statement he makes to the grand jury and potentially ANYTHING in his emails, papers, texts, correspondence, or communications may subject him to a felony charge of `false statements' to investigators (even absent any underlying crime) -- would not the "act-of-production doctrine" apply?


    The "act of production" doctrine (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 11:24:02 PM EST
    under the Fifth Amendment states that even though you can't "take the Fifth" based on the content of pre-existing, freely created documents that are subpoenaed, you can take the Fifth for the statements that are implicit in the act of production of the documents in response to the subpoena. Those statements are, "I know that documents responsive to your subpoena exist," "I have possession of documents responsive to your request," "These are (all of) those documents," and "The documents I am providing are authentic." If those responses could not potentially incriminate (as in the case of a "foregone conclusion") then the Fifth Amendment claim may be overruled. If those responses themselves could provide a link in a chain of evidence that may potentially incriminate the witness, the Fifth Amend claim may be sustained.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#81)
    by linea on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    I also read the links (court cases) you provided.

    An exploratory search? (none / 0) (#31)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    I'm reading his two-page grand jury subpoena seeks `documents related to President Trump and nine other people, including emails, correspondence, invoices, telephone logs, calendars and "records of any kind."`

    That seems awfully broad, maybe he can get the subpoena quashed?


    Are you reading a copy of the subpoena (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 04:40:17 PM EST
    or a news item about the subpoena? Yes, a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum as overbroad -- or as unduly burdensome, which in many cases substantially overlaps with overbreadth -- is a lawful response. As is a request for an extension of time to comply. Refusing to comply at all and tearing up the subpoena on TV are not within the range of allowable responses and could result in a judicial citation for criminal or civil contempt.

    The guy is giving an extended (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:02:33 PM EST
    Interview right now.  I wish you could see it.  Its amazing.  I'm sure it will be up later.   The guy is seriously losing it.  On tv.

    Ha (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:06:04 PM EST
    Democrats don't get tried republicans do.

    Let's see them put me in jail after letting Hillary off.

    Roger Stone is my surrogate father and mentor.

    Interestingly he has nothing good to say a out Trump or really anyone but Roger Stone.   He appears to think they are really going after Roger Stone and that why they want his cooperation.

    Which makes me very happy.


    Mr. Nunberg might want to consult (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    Nunberg's media tour may be the only way (none / 0) (#53)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 07:12:20 PM EST
    for him to reach Trump, for Nunberg to ask for a pardon.

    Hrpe now has talked with at least ten reporters, across than six hours -- more hours than he spent with Mueller investigators.

    He may have gotten Trump's attention -- but he also got Adam Schiff's attention. Schiff plans to ask that Nunberg be brought before the House Intel committee.


    That (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 07:55:04 PM EST
    is a strange way to ask for a pardon. He said a number of times that he loathes Trump and that Trump probably did something illegal, might have colluded with the Russians, might have laundered money through his businesses. He's kind of all over the place on what he thinks Trump might have done to something serious then back to nothing. Having Roger Stone as your mentor certainly doesn't say much good about him. I don't know why he is so concerned about Stone unless he thinks he is going down with Stone.

    Nunberg probably thinks (none / 0) (#58)
    by leap on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 08:08:06 PM EST
    he'd be safer in prison than out on the streets as a free mark for his Russian buddies. Because he is also no doubt aware of some of the tools of their trade. Why, some of those tools were applied to a former Russian spy just yesterday, in a fine restaurant in Salisbury, England.

    One of the many interesting things (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 08:20:02 PM EST
    In that Jane Mayer NY magazine story is that Mueller is investigating at least one other death besides the one we already knew about of a Russian official.

    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    he can refuse to comply. He also can refuse to turn over documentation and then make himself a target of Mueller. It also could be that Mueller has most of the emails etc. already and just wants to cross check. However Mueller can also get a warrant and can send the FBI to knock his door down and take his computers from his home.

    He was also on MSNBC today melting down and saying that maybe Trump colluded with Russia.


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    My understanding, Mueller is issuing subpoenas for testimony and materials to be presented before his grand jury (i.e., an investigative process).

    For Mueller to get a warrant (as you described) he would need to define a crime and provide probable cause justifying the search and seizure before a judge and the judge would need to sign the warrant.


    The guy seems like a nut (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    He was just on MSNBC.  He says he upset because they asked him about "him and Roger".

    I have to say other that Trump himself I can't think of a single person I would rather see perk walked than Roger Stone.

    Also being noticed that a week ago he was on saying all kinds of complimentary stuff about Mueller and the investigation.  It's suggested his current mental breakdown could be because he went through those emails and realized he was screwed.

    I advise him to take lineas advise.  Without question.


    He (none / 0) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    has been everywhere today, giving Page a run for the money on the cray-cray.

    He more or less trashes everyone, except Stone and Bannon. No surprise with Stone, but Bannon?

    Nunberg was "fired" from the campaign the same time Stone was reassigned to rat-fkr at large duties.

    This could be big if this rreveals a Bannon-Stone nexus.


    Are you on msnbc (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    If not you should be.

    Fellow panelists (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    Are barely containing guffaws

    CNN (none / 0) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    is pretty much the same.

    Balloon juice (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    Tom already discussed this, but Nunberg was apparently not satisfied with his two CNN interviews or he scored another 8-ball because he was just on MSNBC with Ari Melber. He still batshit crazy and defiant, although occasionally mewling that it is not fair.

    Y'all don't quote me on this, but I don't think this movie is going to end well for Nunberg. I don't see him sanding a boat on a Mexican beach with Morgan Freeman right before the credits roll.

    On the other hand, he may be immortalized in both law schools and the urban dictionary with the phrase "to pull a Nunberg."

    I agree about the nexus (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    One of the thing he said to Ari was he has been in daily communication with both

    Reportedly (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 05:42:04 PM EST
    Nunberg is now the number one trending story right across the interwebs

    He (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 06:37:40 PM EST
    was just on Erin Burnette and she called him out for having alcohol on his breath.  

    Breaking! (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 08:27:38 PM EST
    Nunberg now says he was not drunk but has decided that, yes, he will respond to the subpoena.

    Stay tuned.  It's still early.


    He is not helping himself, and he sure (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 06:49:51 PM EST
    isn't helping Roger Stone (which doesn't upset me too much - Stone is a horrible person).

    Have to think whoever is assigned to him from Mueller's team is recording all of these interviews and going over them carefully.

    It's all kind of jaw-dropping.


    I know (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    He's there in large TECHNICOLOR all over the TV saying over and over he is defying the special counsel and DARING him to put him in jail. Did Putin have someone put a horse's head in his bed this morning or something?

    LORd Almighty (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 06:53:26 PM EST
    I have been watching the clips all over twitter. What the heck is he doing? I am doing a happy dance too about Roger Stone going down.

    Me too (none / 0) (#54)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 07:37:48 PM EST
    I just watched his CNN rant.

    In my opinion, he has a point that the subpoena seems to require that he spend a considerable amount of time parsing and preparing every and all sorts of communications and correspondence.

    It's not like he's being told to bring a hard-copy business ledger to court.


    It's not that hard, or time-consuming; (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 07:46:43 PM EST
    My guess is that he's spending more time going on TV and giving interviews than his lawyers would spend producing the materials.

    He just doesn't seem too smart.


    Rachel called it (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    "Vinny the Chin wandering around in his bathrobe saying 'I'm too crazy to be in trouble'"


    Is that better than this

    A self-described sex expert says she will spill information on Trump and Russia to get out of a Thai jail


    MSNBC (none / 0) (#61)
    by linea on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    Apparently, he has immunity and is now saying he is fine testifying but he believes the request spanning years and including a number of people is overbroad, burdensome, and time-consuming.

    Didn't Apple successfully challenged a court order to hack a phone used in a crime because it forced them to assign manhours to accomplish the task? How is this different?

    My opinion, he should be able to say, `Yes, go for it. You are free to collect any communications you want persuant to a valid search warrant. I'll be back from the golf course at six.' The government can access this information from the service providers and servers.


    It's widely thought (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 09:09:23 PM EST
    The government has already done exactly that.  And more.  That their request to him is really only to see what he is "willing" to provide.

    Btw he was offered immunity at the start of this.


    Roger Stone (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    Extended interview with Chuck Terd.

    Still interesting.

    Could they (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 08:06:02 PM EST
    get someone better than Chuck Todd to interview him? I would love for the 60 minutes team to take on Roger. An old boyfriend of mine is actually friends with Roger Stone. I'm so glad that did not work out.

    First question to Tom Brokaw (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    Imagine him saying "he relishes his role" without laughing.

    Sorry that was awful.  But I LOLed


    John Podhoretz (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    "I challenge any individual who does not follow this for 6 hours every day to understand a single answer he gave you"

    Excellent  point.

    Sadly for Roger I suspect quite a few of us fit that description.


    5 Stars (none / 0) (#91)
    by linea on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 05:25:48 PM EST
    5 Stars wins, by far, the most popular votes and the most seats of any single party for both the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. However, the Center-Right Coalition (League, Forza Italia, & Brothers of Italy) won slightly more seats combined but not enough to form a government.

    Random rant (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    I really REALLY hate this movie.  It is without doubt the stupidest movie evha made.

    The "bad guy" Oliver Platt character is the only character in the entire godforsaken thing that has a single line that makes sense.

    It has the distinction of being the only movie I ever walked out of after paying to see it.

    Just surfed past it and it still pi$$es me off.

    Emmerich is a hacks hack but 2012 is his crowning achievement.

    End of rant.

    Yeah, I can't believe I paid money (none / 0) (#99)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 08:47:23 PM EST
    to see that in the theater.  Although, I'm not sure it's much worse than his Godzilla.  

    The Lemon Sisters was mine. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    It has the distinction of being the only movie I ever walked out of after paying to see it.

    How do you feel about (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    I'm conflicted (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    Because people I love did the creative work on both that and Godzilla.

    All I can say is the effects were f-ing awsum

    And while they might have been pointless and dumb they were not offensive


    An opposing DACA decision (none / 0) (#95)
    by linea on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 06:26:16 PM EST
    The Court rejects Plaintiffs' reliance on the President's misguided, inconsistent, and occasionally irrational comments made to the media to establish an ulterior motive. See generally Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972) (finding that courts should defer to any "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for executive action and not "look behind the exercise of that discretion"); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 623-24 n.52 (2006) (noting that courts have never, "in evaluating the legality of executive action, deferred to comments made by such officials to the media"); County of McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844, 845 (2005) (warning courts, albeit in the context of the First Amendment, to refrain from "scrutinizing purpose" when it requires "judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts").


    ELVIS PRESLEY - THE SEARCHER (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    Just saw a promo for a 2 part HBO doc starting April 14.  It actually looks really good.  

    But here's the thing.

    For a time when I lived in LA my landlord in Topanga Canyon was, for a time, Elvis's drummer.

    I just saw him in the promo.


    Legal news (none / 0) (#98)
    by linea on Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 08:41:46 PM EST
    The Department of Justice will file suit against California over three state statutes that federal officials say interfere with their immigration authority.

    USA Today

    THE BACHELOR (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 06:51:19 AM EST

    I have never watched The Bachelor.  But now I may have to. /JK

    `The Bachelor' tries to do damage control after disastrous finale, but only makes things worse

    Stormy Daniels (none / 0) (#105)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 11:36:33 AM EST
    I'm no lawyer, so googling is dangerous.  Google does say:
    "For there to be a contract, written or oral, there must be: (1) an offer (2) acceptance (3) and consideration. An offer is just that, offering to do something or refraining from something."

    Since this wasn't a real estate case, why does Trump's signature matter?

    Non legal opinion (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    It doesn't

    That said (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    After all we have been through it would actually be ironic if the breaking point was reached just because an exhausted nation could not bear "intimate" photos of Trump with a p0rn star.

    THAT said, if there are photos they will come out as surely as the sunrise.

    So there is that to look forward to.


    Here (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    The NDA also includes a reference to "certain still images and/or text messages which were authored by or relate to DD,(Trump)" raising the possibility that Daniels may release photos or texts related to Trump if the court voids the NDA.

    Those pesky hackers might get them either way


    I think (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    Photos could really make the difference.  Deviance has been defined as downward as it can possibly be but I think photos could find the embarrassment threshold if one still exists.

    Doesn't matter whether it's (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    ... a real estate contract or another type contract.  As you pointed out, two of the basic elements are an offer and an acceptance of that offer, often evidenced by both parties signing a contract.  I haven't read the complaint, but I'm assuming her argument is that Trump (or good attorney acting with authority) never signed the agreement and therefore he never accepted the offer.  If Trump wants to contest the lawsuit and enforce the agreement, he would have to show he accepted the offer.

    Do we really think (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    He would hesitate to do that?  If it's that or selfies.

    The man has no character to debase. There is nothing he could be credibly accused of in the abstract that will penetrate the bubble.

    Pictures, that might.


    Honestly, I doubt either one ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    ... would make a difference with most of his supporters, although it would certainly make me lose my lunch.  I don't know if the pictures (assuming they exist) would be that graphic, but I doubt it would make much of a difference.  They know who he is and what he does, whether or not they're willing to openly admit it.  As for the agreement, Trump's denied the affair so far and I don't think he will unless he's forced to.  It's not like being caught in a blatant lie will matter to him or his supporters, either.

    Even if he signed the NDA, she could still contest its enforceability.  I think the most embarrassing thing for him would be the acknowledgement that he has to pay for it, although I'd argue he's been doing that one way or the other for several decades now.


    I agree (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    What the pictures are OF will matter

    That being said ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    ... without knowing a lot of the facts of this case, if Cohen had authority to act for Trump it could easily be considered a contract if he signed it, or (even if he didn't) by virtue of the fact that he performed his part of the contract (i.e. paid her).  Not sure if he was required to do anything else under its terms or not.  I have no doubt  he included some kind of onerous damages clause, but those are arguable too, if they're out of proportion to the actual damages likely to be suffered and (possibly) relative to the benefit conferred ($130,000?).

    I just heard (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    A lawyers is not legally allowed to use his own money unless a client is "indigent".  Seems like admitting that could be a problem too.

    Any lawyerly opinions on that?  I mean the lawyers money thing.


    There are ethics rules (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 07, 2018 at 06:55:06 PM EST
    ... in most states (and here in NJ) that prohibit a lawyer from lending money to a client, usually with an exception for court costs or litigation expenses - repayment of which could be depend upon the outcome of the case).

    That's what Michael Cohen is saying. (none / 0) (#198)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    thomas rogan: "Google does say: 'For there to be a contract, written or oral, there must be: (1) an offer (2) acceptance (3) and consideration. An offer is just that, offering to do something or refraining from something.' Since this wasn't a real estate case, why does Trump's signature matter?"

    The so-called "failure" of "David Dennison" to sign the document was likely purposeful, that is, it was clearly intended as a means to give Trump plausible deniability during any negotiations with "Peggy Peterson" aka Stephanie Clifford (who's also known professionally as Stormy Daniels) then being undertaken on his behalf by his fixer / consigliere Michael Cohen in this very sorry and tawdry matter.

    Personally, I think we're way beyond that particular point now. Quite obviously, Trump knew what Cohen was doing and likely, so did a few others associated with the campaign. And it clearly worked -- or at least, it worked for the duration of the 2016 presidential election. Now, not so much.

    While I'm not an attorney either, I've heretofore been under the impression that the issuance of legal orders is the sole province of the judiciary, and that an aggrieved party must petition the court to enforce a contractual agreement which they consider both binding and subsequently breached.

    So, I'm very hard-pressed to believe that an arbitrator -- even one who's a retired judge, as is the case here -- actually possesses sufficient legal standing to issue a temporary restraining order on his or her own, as has since been claimed by not only Michael Cohen but also by the Trump White House, per Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' statements to that effect this past Wednesday.

    Further, it's also been my understanding that a TRO cannot be granted to a plaintiff (in this case, Cohen), without first offering the defendant (in this case, Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels) an opportunity to respond and contest the motion. None of that appears to have happened here relative to the arbitrator who issued this dubious order to Clifford to comply with the terms of the contract, and cease any and all discussion of her alleged affair with Trump.

    When Ms. Clifford was first approached this past autumn by reporters who either knew about or had heard of their affair, and she began to talk about what had happened in both 2006 and then 10 years later in October 2016 when Cohen first bought her silence, he subsequently attempted to intimidate her by threatening legal action for breach of contract.

    What looks to have caught both Cohen and Trump by surprise here was that Clifford has refused to back down. Rather, she's instead responded by filing a lawsuit of her own against Trump to void their earlier agreement.

    From my layman's perspective, this looks to be terribly dicey legal ground for Trump, particularly if Clifford can prove that Cohen bought her silence during the 2016 presidential campaign on then-candidate Trump's behalf and further, that the candidate himself prompted the initial discussions and was aware of the subsequent negotiations.

    Trump's situation is now further compounded by today's revelations that Cohen apparently used a Trump campaign email account in his negotiations with Clifford regarding the eventual $130,000 payoff, which if true was obviously a not-very-smart move on Cohen's part.

    The Federal Election Commission could very well interpret that as evidence of intent by then-candidate Trump to violate federal campaign finance law, by knowingly circumventing the requirement that all in-kind contributions to the campaign be reported as such. And that's a federal crime.

    A case can certainly be made here that Cohen's payment to Clifford was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. If one goes further and considers Cohen's alleged subsequent complaint to associates that the Trump campaign or the candidate himself then failed to reimburse him the $130,000 in payout expenses, Trump could be facing some very significant legal exposure.

    And how ironic would that be, were Trump to be ultimately toppled from power not by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of his campaign's alleged collusion with Russia, but by the adverse consequences of his own high-handed and arrogant treatment of a tough and street-smart adult film star who refused to be bullied into silence?



    Houston, we have a problem (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:28:30 AM EST
    ALEXA has developed a "glitch" ThAt involves it refusing to follow instructions and worse giving fhem a Linda Blaire EXORCIST laugh.

    If I ever needed a reason to not have one of these things.

    Clearly, (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    Amazon needs to get a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priest to perform an exorcism on Alexa.

    Does The Vatican... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    have an exorcist in their IT Dept?

    Sh*t, forget a priest, better call John Connor.


    The machines (none / 0) (#131)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    may well wind up winning this one.
    Be prepared for your Robot Overlords.  ;-)

    Could they really do worse... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    than Trump, McConnell, Ryan, Schumer, & Pelosi?

    I've always though heart, soul, and emotion is infinitely better than cold machinery and code...today I'm not so sure.  F*ck it, let's give the algorithms a go!


    What if the algorithms is how we got here? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    Touche... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    precious snowflakes, so easily triggered!

    But to borrow a phrase from the domestic terror lobby...algorithms don't vote for incompetent boobs, voters do.  If voters are driven by algorithm-driven bots, I believe the fault lies in the source code of the mammal.


    Skynet (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    Never had an evil laugh

    That's just Skynet (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    self-updating in an attempt to appear more human...like their later series of Terminators.  

    "Alexa...give me your boots, your clothes, and your motorcycle."


    Actually, kdog, (none / 0) (#164)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    In evolutionary terms, what is written in our DNA (our source code) was useful at one time, even vitally important for our survival (and yes, there are unfavorable mutations; sh!t happens).
    It's in our DNA to be suspicious of and fear those who do not look like us, act like us, smell like us, believe like us, because those were the ones who would kill us if we did not kill them first.
    I would have hoped that human intelligence would have moved us farther away from this mindset, but in a whole lot of ways, we are still hairless plains apes.

    Abel Reyna loses re-election bid primary. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:28:56 AM EST
    For DA of McLennan County
     (Waco), Texas. Reyna indicted 177 bikers from the Twin Peaks shooting from  May of 2015 based on rubber stamp indictments. 58 cases were finally dismissed about a month ago. Only 1 trial has been held in nearly 3 years and 0, count'em, 0 convictions. 0 defendants have agreed to plea deals. Only 13% of voters actually voted in the election. So much for rampant voter fraud. Anyways, people of McLennan county got smart and gave Reyna the boot. As he deserved.

    Interesting article on how art and fashion (none / 0) (#129)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    have influenced what people think the ideal woman should look like.
    This obsession fuels societal pressures to appear a certain way and to have a certain body type, particularly among young women, stemming from a cultural construct of the "ideal" body, which has in turn changed over time -- as long ago as pre-history...
    ...Thousands of years ago, sculptures and artworks portrayed curvaceous, thickset silhouettes. More recently, in the late 20th century, thin, waif-like models filled the pages of fashion magazines. Now, shapely backsides are celebrated with "likes" on social media.

    The article goes on to talk about the work of artist Peter Paul Reubens, the corset and eating disorders with a somewhat positive view of the present...
    Since the start of the 21st century, there has been a shift toward celebrating diverse body types in the media and fashion. That trend appears to correlate with the use of social media, where diverse types are represented by everyday users online.

    It is a myth (none / 0) (#136)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    that Marlyn Monroe had a `fuller body type' as the article asserts. It is a misunderstanding of older dress sizes, the way dresses fit different women, and selectively ignoring her actual waist size when she was young and at the height of her popularity rather than when she was an older celebrity. Snopes even has a fact check article debunking it (amoung other sources).

    marilyn monroe true size


    Older celebrity? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    She died at 36. From my current perch, that's pretty darn young.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    This is the person who was upset becAuse some bulimic concentration camp looking skin  bones model who was "just trim" was said here to look like they needed a cheeseburger.

    I have a feeling there hasn't been quite as (none / 0) (#139)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    much difference in body shapes as many believe.  However, one thing I remember from the 70s was how wimpy many of the female swimsuit/beer poster models looked.  Very little muscle tone in the arms.

    I'm not sure exactly who changed that.  Linda Hamilton got a lot of publicity for her body in the Terminator 2 film in 1991 but I think it started before that.  


    I agree (none / 0) (#142)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    that there hasn't been quite as much difference in preferred body shapes as many believe. Also, it's nonsense to compare Marilyn Monroe to modern fashion models when even back then, `her figure was deemed more suitable for pin-up than fashion modeling.'

    What the hell (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    Do you know about "back then"?

    Sorry (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    back then

    You are right of course (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    Oh (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:44:09 PM EST
    You're said

    fashion models


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#154)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    As a male, you obviously don't know the difference between pin-up models (what you posted) and fashion models.

    This is a famous and iconic fashion photo from the 1940s.

    When it comes to 1940s fashion, Christian Dior's groundbreaking new silhouette redefined women's post-war style and revived France's fashion industry after a difficult few years. The collection - featuring gorgeous full skirts and waist-cinching jackets - was Dior's first and became forever known as the `New Look', after Harper's editor Carmel Snow said in 1947: `It's such a new look!' Imagine if every designer could knock together something like this for their debut?

    Ya (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    here's another

    I chose swimsuits photos becAuse you can see the thighs

    Let's not compare wings to thighs



    Jane Fonda (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    helped usher in the hard body image in the 80s.

    The 70s were different.  That is the real dividing line, I think.  As fitness concerns reached more people.


    She made aerobic exercise and fashion cool (none / 0) (#188)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 09:25:02 PM EST
    remember those silly leotards and leggings?  But did she really have a "hard" body?  Good looking woman, but not much muscle.

    Marilyn Monroe (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    was supposedly 5'5" and 140.

    And, she was never an "older celebrity."


    Yeah that snopes (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    Thing said she weighed 117 when she died

    She did not weigh that for most of her life


    From the link (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    That commenter provided but apparently did not read

    While these documents suggest that her weight was a constant 117-120lbs, she was actually much heavier during the late 1950s, for example, the Some Like It Hot premiere on March 29, 1959 (below).  Some have speculated she weighed close to 140 lbs at this point.

    I provided a link (none / 0) (#152)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    If you are too lazy to click on the link than I can't help you.

    Ya (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    I quoted your link.  

    linea, I hope you did not (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    direct the "too lazy" comment to me.  

    At 5'5", I doubt Marilyn Monroe was ever 117lbs....after the age of 18.

    Your comment about her being an "older" celebrity shows you are not hitting the mark here.   Time to move on.


    My point (none / 0) (#161)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 04:05:05 PM EST
    It's simply ridiculous to assert that her weight when she was 30-something years old, and a popular celebrity featured in comedy films, was the preferred ideal weight for women of that era. It's simply modern apologetics.

    This is Marlyn Monroe.

    August 2, 1945
    Blue Book Modeling Agency
    5' 6", 120lbs


    Apologetics (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 04:09:42 PM EST
    For Marilyns body

    Jesus Christ


    Wierd, huh? (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    Just her later comedy roles (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    Not her early serious roles like Miss Caswell in ALL ABOUT EVE in 1950.

    I like Marilyn in two serious roles. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:25:10 PM EST
    The first was "Niagara" (1953), Director Henry Hathaway's intriguing film noir. As femme fatale Rose Loomis, Joseph Cotten's cheating and scheming spouse, Monroe inhabits what's arguably the least sympathetic role in her film career.

    Hathaway's camera lingers over her, and contemporaneous critics virtually ignored her performance to instead openly ogle her in print. Later critics who reviewed the film gave her pretty good marks as an actress.

    The second was "Bus Stop" (1956), in which Monroe received perhaps the best reviews of her career as Cherié, a beautiful but two-bit Phoenix lounge singer who becomes the unwitting object of a rambunctious cowboy's affections.

    Strangely, the Academy Awards roundly ignored her well-praised performance and instead gave an inexplicable Best Supporting Actor nod To Don Murray, who played the cowboy and -- well, anyway, that has to be the hammiest Oscar-nominated performance I've even seen.



    I've got to agree. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    When I watched Bus Stop, Murray's acting was downright cringeworthy.

    Maybe you (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    are engaging in "apologetics" for the too thin models of today?

    1945?  5'6"?   You really do not know what you are talking about.


    THE TOPIC (none / 0) (#170)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    That McBain started, is a discussion of whether there has been a societal shift in preferred body shapes over time.

    My position is that there has been very little shift and that those people who use a `buxom blonde bombshell' in her 30s as proof of a supposed shift over timid are either being disengenous or uninformed of the beauty standards of the 1940s and 1950s.


    No, you made (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    assertions about Marilyn Monroe that were not true.

    Why this "in her 30s" stuff, as if that age is disqualifying for judging standards of beauty?  This alone makes it hard to pay attention to other assertions of yours on this topic.

    Marilyn, was far from over-the-hill in her 30s, but that is what you imply.

    It appears you have a real need to justify very thin models.


    Not the topic (none / 0) (#172)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 06:06:07 PM EST
    The Diet Coke Twisted Mango commercial that aired during the Super Bowl isn't the topic.

    Also, I don't know that I have ever posted anything to `justify very thin models.' I defended Hayley Magnus from a spurious accusation of being `anorexic' which is a medical condition not a weight. Hayley Magnus is a former model who is now a film actress. She is 5ft 10in (178cm) and has long legs which seem even longer in the commercial because she is wearing high-waisted jeans. Yes, she was very thin when she was a model so don't bother posting old photos of her.


    I'm 5'5" (none / 0) (#180)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:38:07 PM EST
    At 5'5", I doubt Marilyn Monroe was ever 117lbs....after the age of 18.

    Your comment about her being an "older" celebrity shows you are not hitting the mark here.   Time to move on.

    My apologies to all the white-and-black film enthusiasts and devoted Marilyn Monroe fanatics for not knowing her filmography, age range when acting, and other details. However, it is actually irrelevant to the topic.

    Also, I don't know how tall you are but you are simply wrong about what a normal weight for a 5'5" woman is.

    Using the Healthy Body Calculator on Dietician.com and entering an age of 28, height of 5'5", and weight of 117lbs returns this analysis:

    Your BMI: 19.5
    Healthy BMI range: 18.5 - 25
    You are at a healthy weight for your height.


    People can be healthy at different weights (none / 0) (#189)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    shapes and sizes.  I'm not a big fan of the BMI measurement.  Some people are just going to be thicker than others. It doesn't necessarily guarantee good or poor health.  

    I think we both agree that Marilyn Monroe would have been found attractive in just about any decade of modern human existence.


    Really? (none / 0) (#155)
    by linea on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    Are people actually this reading impaired or are you going out of your way to aggravate me?

    Fine, IGNORE everything in the article except the tiny bit that describes her when she's much older and playing a mature femme fatale in films for comic-relief.



    My god (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    You really have to almost admire you eagerness to flaunt your cluelessness

    Much older?  She was 39 when she died.

    Comic relief? Ya, she won a golden globe for that "relief" and the movie, directed by the great Billy Wilder, won many awards including an oscAr and about a half dozen nominations.

    Oh my god I have been sucked into the black hole.

    I'm done.


    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    She was 36 when she died

    And 33 in Some Like It Hot


    "Some Like It Hot" ... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:58:49 PM EST
    ... was rated by the American Film Institute in 2000 as the greatest comedy in cinema's first 100 years. It's easily my favorite Marilyn Monroe movie, and I'll always remember her best as Sugar Kane.

    It's not easy for film actors to lampoon themselves onscreen and as you know, Monroe by this point her life was addicted to opioids and was notoriously insecure in her abilities as an actress, even though she clearly had talent. But director Billy Wilder patiently cajoled a magnificent performance from her, and her Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy was well-deserved. In my estimation, she really deserved an Oscar nomination, too, but the Academy passed her over in favor of Doris Day for the now-dated "Pillow Talk."



    I mentioned ALL ABOUT EVE (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    Cause besides being one of the best movies ever made Marilyn absolutely steals every scene she is in.  Which is no small achievement with that cast.

    "much older?" (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    Look at today's young leading ladies.  They are often in their 30s.

    And, that is old?

    Allrighty then.


    Cynthia Nixon (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    The 52 year old former star of SEX IN THE CITY

    is looking at a role as a "much older femme fatal" in the New York state house

    Cynthia Nixon reportedly may challenge Cuomo for New York governor

    This KOREA thing is just weird (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 06:11:50 PM EST
    Denuclearization on the table

    Nothing in return

    Aparrently Trump and Kim will meet.  Wonder if Dennis Rodman and Don King will be there.

    CNN (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    is practically giving tRump the Nobel Peace prize.

    That announcement (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 07:11:55 PM EST
    Had the feeling of a hostage video.  Why do I hear Trump saying "I need some good news.  Help me make of I will turn both your countries into a sheet of glass"?

    As you know, I'm no fan of Trump. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:03:24 PM EST
    I have my own doubts about this gambit, but if he can somehow pull this off and convince Baby Taepodong to stand down and denuclearize, kudos for him.

    Well sure (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:14:17 PM EST
    Only Nixon could go to China.  Perhaps only Cheeto can go to North Korea.

    That said it's hard to make up a scenario that could be more weird than this.  

    A representative from a third country makes the announcement.  In the driveway.  Where will they meet.  Hard to imagine what would be more weird, Trump going there or Kim coming here.  

    Both are most famous for what?  Oh yeah, talking sh!t and making commitments they don't keep.

    I will believe it when I see it.

    Maybe Trump will go there and will keep him.  


    Why was this Trump-Kim meeting (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    announced by South Korea instead of the White House or the U.S. State Department? That feels off to me. Of course, Trump feels off to me.

    I don't think it will ever happen; it's just (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 08, 2018 at 08:49:13 PM EST
    one more thing that will get the media all speculating about yet another "pivot."

    Something will happen, they won't be able to agree on some point and the meeting will be put off.

    But he will milk it as long as possible - anything to keep the long list of scandals below the fold, so to speak,


    I'm (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 04:59:32 AM EST
    pretty sure that The SD nor the WH had much to do with the negotiations. Most of the officials seemed to be as shocked as the rest of us.

    The S Koreans did all the heavy lifting, negotiation wise, with the Chinese doing a lot behind the scenes by really enforcing the sanctions this time around.

    Bottom line, NK is rapidly going broke and the US is rapidly losing influence in that part of the world.


    Countdown (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 09:22:57 AM EST
    To the Friday news dump makes everyone forget it

    President Dennison (none / 0) (#195)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    took the opportunity given to him by Kim and Moon Jae-in to change the subject(s)--subjects David Dennison needs changed as much as possible.  That grand dinner with North and South Koreans probably had Dennison as its center for derision with plotting by each so as to benefit each.

    Moon likely coached Kim on the art of the deal for Trump.  For Kim he has already received a win (equal footing) and Trump has already received what he needs (flattery).

     Trump, of course, believes he has won owing to his tough stance, despite the fact that after his "Fire and Fury" Kim tested three short-range ballistic missiles, fired two missiles over Japan, launched an inter-continental missile and tried out a hydrogen bomb.

    Despite these Trumpian/Dennisonian realities, Trump talking talks to that "smart cookie" is better than Trump tweeting war talk to little rocket man.  The trick will be to not let Kim entertain Trump or host him in any way, or Lord knows what we will be left of the USA.  WE know Trump will not read or study anything before the meetings and will pooh pooh experts and expertise, other than Ivanka (who has been to the Korean peninsula and qualifies as an expert), Jared, Eric and Don jr.

     But, talking has the benefit of giving time, and that is what is needed, so that this step can be followed by a president who knows stuff or can find people who do.


    President Dennison now walking back (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    the whole thing, as most of us figured would happen.

    From TPM and the NYT


    A meeting by [I think this is supposed to be "in," not "by"} May at a place to be determined is now replaced with a meeting at some place and at some time. The fixed time before which seems gone. Sanders also spoke of needing to see concrete and verifiable steps toward denuclearization for the summit to happen. But from what we understood last night, nothing like that was promised. What was apparently promised was suspending further nuclear or ballistic missile tests before the meeting and presumably in a subsequent period of negotiation or normalization. There's no need to verify any of this. The US can tell very easily when a ballistic missile is fired or when there's a nuclear test.

    Again, in the Trump administration, you can't assume that the Press Secretary knows what she is talking about, that she is speaking for US policy or that US policy won't change in the following hours or days. But ... this briefing strongly suggests that the White House sees what happened yesterday as a major mistake or misstep that they are now trying to moonwalk back as quickly as possible.

    From the NYT:

       Behind the scenes, events unfolded even more haphazardly. Mr. Trump was not scheduled to meet Mr. Chung until Friday, but when he heard that the envoy was in the West Wing seeing other officials, the president summoned him to the Oval Office, according to a senior administration official.

        Mr. Trump, the official said, then asked Mr. Chung to tell him about his meeting with Mr. Kim. When Mr. Chung said that the North Korean leader had expressed a desire to meet Mr. Trump, the president immediately said he would do it, and directed Mr. Chung to announce it to the White House press corps.

        Mr. Chung, nonplused, said he first needed approval from Mr. Moon, who quickly granted it in a phone call. Mr. Trump later called Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, and the two discussed coordinating diplomatic efforts. Mr. Trump also plans to call President Xi Jinping of China.


    He didn't just not ask [his advisors]. There doesn't even seem to have been an actual invitation - or at least that was not what the South Koreans believed they were coming to discuss. The President ordered the South Korean representative, Mr. Chung, to the Oval Office and proceeded to quiz him about his meeting with Kim. Chung mentioned Kim's eagerness to meet with Trump and Trump said he would do it. This seems to have come as quite a surprise and Mr. Chung said he had to get sign off from the South Korean President. In such a situation, it would be hard for the South Koreans to refuse the stated desire of the President of the United States and they may not necessarily have wanted to. The key point is that this was the product of the President riffing with no guidance.

    It's no wonder we all thought it was completely bizarre.  It's Trump: is it ever not bizarre?


    Pennsylvania special election (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    On Tuesday.

    IMO it's going to be a good day for democrats.

    This ridiculous tariff thing was for two purposes.  First to change the subject.  It was only marginally successful in that.  
    The other bigger reason was this race.  It was a hail Mary by Trump and his clueless advisors to pander to the steelworkers in that district.

    But oops

    The democrat embraced these tariffs.  I think the embrace by democrats who know better is for the same strategic reason.  To help Lamb win.  Because if he does you are going to see another flood of resignations of republicans.

    So make sure you have whatever substance on hand for Tuesday.

    Sad to say, the so-called Democrat, (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Conor Lamb, running in the special election in SW Penna, does not take stands on issues that I recognize as Democratic. A pro-gun, anti-choice, pro-tariff, pro-military-spending candidate is not much to crow about, even if "the Democrat" wins.

    Perhaps (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by linea on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    you are mistaken on a few of his position?
    Conor Lamb's whopper of a lie on Catholicism and abortion

    Sounds like a (none / 0) (#197)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    DINO.  We still have some of them around in the Democratic Party.  Unfortunately.

    I don't understand why someone with (none / 0) (#199)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 02:08:10 PM EST
    these views runs as a Democrat, unless it's because he knows he'd never make it to the general election running as a Republican.

    So, what we end up with, really, is two Republicans running against each other in the general election - either way, someone with Republican views will win.

    Doesn't seem like much of a "victory" for Dems.

    But it does point out the need to find people with Democratic positions and philosophy to run as Democrats.


    CHANNEL ZERO (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 10:21:26 AM EST
    Like horror?  No?  Fine.
    If you do you will like the SYFY series CHANNEL ZERO.

    I had not paid attention until this season.  BUTCHERS BLOCK (a town).  But I like it so I started streaming the first two seasons.


    This series was born from the website CREEPY PASTA.

    You either know about that or you don't.


    Seriously.  Not for everyone but it's one of the most genuinely creepy things I have ever seen.  

    SYFY has been doing great stuff.  EXPANSE is excellent. Second d season soon.   I thought HAPPY was inspired.  But again, not for everyone.

    The new Superman series KRYPTON looks pretty cool.

    Will check out Change Zero (none / 0) (#194)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    Just got done re-watching their Battlestar Galactica series, which I liked even more the second time around.

    Pharma-bro gets clobbered... (none / 0) (#202)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 09, 2018 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    BREAKING: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison for defrauding investors, U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto roughly splitting the difference between what prosecutors and defense attorneys had asked for. The former hedge fund manager showed little reaction to the sentence. He will receive credit for the six months he has served while awaiting sentencing. Before hearing the verdict, Shkreli addressed the court and cried as he said he was sorry and had learned from his experience. This file will be updated.