The Inanity of It All

I'm tired of repeating what Donald Trump says. It's so pointless. I don't think he believes any of it, it's all for effect, just a re-election campaign ploy and a futile attempt to change how the history books characterize his abysmal reign of terror in the White House. His modus operandi is so transparent by now. Every lie he tells is carefully planned to distract us from the critical issues facing the country, in a desperate attempt to hide his personal failure as a leader and a human being. While he doesn't believe his own lies, he does harbor the futile belief that we won't find out till long after he's gone that he was the most inept person ever to occupy a desk in the oval office.

Latest case in point: His attempt to blame his administration's failures on Barack Obama. Anyone with a television set knows that 80,0000 Americans have now died from Covid-19. Yesterday alone, 985 deaths were recorded. So today Trump pretends the subject of the day is Barack Obama. And the senseless mediaactually reports on this.

One word in the dictionary (and its antonyms) is all you need to tell Donald Trump from Barack Obama and realize there is absolutely no reason to even discuss, let alone debate Trump's claim: Inanity [More...]

Donald Trump is a classic case of inanity (one who is inane.)

  • Vapid, pointless, shallowness, lack of substance, emptiness
  • absurdity, asininity, foolery, idiocy, imbecility, insanity, lunacy, stupidity, buffoonery
  • lacking good judgment, denseness, dim-wittedness, doltishness, dopiness, dumbness, oafishness, obtuseness, simplemindedness, slowness, vacuity,
  • irrational, ridiculous, laughable, unreasonable, ludicrous,
  • drivel, blunder, bungle, flub.

Now let's look at Barack Obama, who represents the opposite of inanity:

  • insignt, prudence, sagacity, wisdom, discretion, sanity, sensibleness
  • logicalness, rationality, reasonableness, soundness, validity, discernment, forethought, perception, inspiration

How is this "ObamaGate" drivel even a topic of discussion, let alone trending on social media?

The media needs to stop paying attention to Donald Trump. Today. Every day he becomes more irrelevant.

Our country is burning and needs to turn its attention to survival. Donald Trump can't find his a** from his elbow let alone help America out of this jam. Neither can his equally obtuse son-in-law. The election (if we even have one)is months away. Thousands more Americans will die from this virus, its mutations and its second wave between now and then. You might be one of them. What good will your vote do you then?

Everyone needs to settle down and just ignore Donald Trump. Who cares if he wears a mask? If he gets sick, it's his own damn fault.

Put your efforts to where they can make a difference. Go after the Governors and members of the House and Senate who have let themselves get trounced by hungry corporations, rich investors seeing their portfolios tumble and small business owners who care more about their financial losses than they do our lives (even though they are lining their pockets with trillions in handouts and loans).

We know the buck won't ever stop with Donald Trump because he is devoid of morality and incapable of caring about anyone but himself. So we, meaning Americans with heads on their shoulders who actually pay attention to national and world affairs, need to be the buck-stoppers. An election pales in comparison to staying healthy and alive.

The people to take on are the people lolling around at he beach; the people who are so desperate to fly somewhere they let themselves be packed onto airplanes like sardines; the people who stand shoulder to shoulder without masks as they line up to eat at a greasy spoon (because it's more important to get out of the house on Mother's Day than it is that everyone else's mother in the community doesn't get sick and die from their community spread of the virus).

We all know these people don't care about freedom because the only people they want to be free are themselves. Look at them closely in the protest photos ... these people will never be free. They don't even know what freedom means. For reasons that started long before this virus, they are just marginalized lost souls searching for who knows what and coming up empty. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose... nothing, and that's all that Bobby left me".

The rest of us do have something to lose and it's a commmodity far more precious than money -- it's called life. Our own lives, the lives of our family members and friends, the lives of others in our communities, including those whom we have never met who are languishing on intubators in hospitals and those incarcerated and unprotected in our jails and prisons, and the lives of our fellow citizens of the world.

Feeling empathy and caring about our fellow human beings enough not to endanger their lives is the antithesis of selfishness. It's a quality that Donald Trump and many of his supporters lack. While it's probably too late for them, surely we can stop them from taking it away from the rest of us.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I liked the moment (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 07:18:42 AM EST
    When a reporter asked him exactly what "crime" Obama had committed and he (of course) could not name one.  

    He is unwell.  And IMO it's clearly getting worse.

    What Dr Fauci is reportedly planning to say today will probably give him a shove over the edge.  Again.  

    I have to say tho I think the media with some notable exceptions has been doing a pretty good job of reporting on his worsening condition.    The reporting on the performance yesterday as good as it probably could have been.  It was such an insane unbelievable thing.  In so many ways.  But the lies, about tests and other stuff, are IMO the best evidence he is deteriorating.  

    Some one compared it to a small child who put their hands over their eyes and thinking you can't see them.

    To really push him over the edge (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jmacWA on Tue May 12, 2020 at 07:47:48 AM EST
    The non-toady media needs to send only woman (preferably minority) to these news conferences from now on.

    Seriously (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    women in general send him over the edge but a question from a POC woman makes him straight jacket level insane.

    I (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:30:06 AM EST
    was thinking the same thing, in any case it would be a wonderful thing for the media to do.

    I would rather (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    They stopped sending anyone.  There was no legitimate news reason to cover that performance yesterday.

    Times (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 07:22:24 AM EST
    "Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert and a central figure in the government's response to the coronavirus, plans to deliver a stark warning to the Senate on Tuesday: Americans would experience `needless suffering and death' if the country opens up prematurely," the New York Times reports.

    "Dr. Fauci, who has emerged as the perhaps nation's most respected voice during the worst public health crisis in a century, is one of four top government doctors scheduled to testify remotely at a high-profile -- and highly unusual -- hearing on Tuesday before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He made his comments in an email to a New York Times reporter late Monday night."

    Also Cspan at 9 central (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 07:36:10 AM EST
    Has coverage of Supreme Court arguments in Trump v Congress and Trump v Vance.

    This over the edge thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    I don't think Trump has edges.

    And he has that murdery people thing - always has.

    He is just not okay in the nugget in a BTK way.


    He's clearly mentally unstable (none / 0) (#155)
    by smott on Thu May 14, 2020 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    But he does seem to have got it into his head to go after Obama, and I don't trust Barr not to drum up some bullshit investigation this summer.
    The Dem House has done eff all to rein in Barr.
    Judge Sullivan at least seems to be trying.

    Trump Side Seems to be Doing Even Worse (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 12, 2020 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    in the Vance case.  You would think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be more sympathetic.  

    It (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    must be the "federalism" in their genes.

    Pretty good ad (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    Open minded me (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 12, 2020 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    I am not a Trump supporter, but if it turns out that bluster, insults, threats and public relations are the most effective means of dealing with a pandemic, I will be forced to admit that he is a genius.

    Spot n, J. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:03:41 PM EST

    A wonderful post Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    I could not agree more.

    And with my favorite song (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Towanda on Wed May 13, 2020 at 10:32:20 PM EST
    with auch an appropriate ending for Preaident 44.5, and I quote the late, great Janus (since this is her addition to Kris Kristofferson's lyrics):

    Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah,
    Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah.


    Taxing the Supreme Court. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 13, 2020 at 03:20:26 PM EST
    The Roberts Supreme Court seems to be in a quandary. They took the Trump tax return cases when the lower courts did not think these were tough legal matters---clear and on-point-- based on Supreme Court precedent. If the Supreme Court thought it could give Trump a hand with the Political Question Doctrine (non justiciable), that did not apply since both sides want a decision. Although just taking the case did buy Trump time.

    The notion that the president has special privileges and immunity during his term of office is based, primarily, on common law, rules, and an OLC opinion on how the president being subject to legal processes might harm the office.  But the Constitution is silent here; there is no Constitutional text so the Court needs to conjure up a theory on how to protect the president, if that is what it wants to do.

    It has been said that it is better to know the judge than the law.  And, this may be the best way to consider the probabilities for the Court's action.  The conservative justices, in the Congressional subpoena case, worry about "open season" on a president and limitlessness in "regulating" a president.  Subpoenas are harassment more than oversight. But, the quandary for those justices appointed by Republican presidents, to a skeptical listener, how do we look at this by some fluke a Democrat becomes president? We need to be nimble so as not to pith Congress.

    The liberal justices looked to stare decisis. How different, if at all, from the Nixon and Clinton cases, despite counsel for Trump asserting that these cases are too recent, whatever that was to mean. And, they emphasized the need for oversight by Congress. Investigation needed for possible legislation. And, information is needed for investigation.

    Chief Justice Roberts may worry about a decision that may be seen as political to the core, jeopardizing institutional integrity and crippling the Court.  And, since reforms in the Supreme Court, such as expansion of its  number, can be effected through the Congress, the decision in these politically-charged cases needs to be strategic.

    So what to do?  (a) require turning over the documents. (b) deny turning over the documents, (c) kick the can down the road in some manner. I go with (c).  Remand to the lower court; stay the order to release tax information, to determine why Congress needs them and articulate a new standard for a case-by-case analysis. This will take some time, surely after the November election.

    The New York case gets more sympathy across the board from the Justices, and is more likely to result in release of the tax information. But, the public will not soon learn about their contents, with the involvement and secrecy of the grand jury.  

    Post script:  The legal challenge for Trump's tax returns, at this point, seems almost quaint. Trump supporters will not care about anything untoward. If he cheated on taxes, that would be OK with them...all rich people do that etc. Trump is beyond shame.  Barr would take care of him for anything that may be criminal.  Others know pretty much what they contain and have long had Trump's number.  The NYTimes reported on much of it, and could be read by all if you ever got to page A35. The Supreme Court may not come out of this as well as Trump.

    In case you are somehow one of the very few (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:07:26 PM EST
    who does not know all about the horrendous crimes of "Obamagate," Alexandra Petri is here to explain it to you.

    Ah, another fan of Petrin Dishes (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Towanda on Wed May 13, 2020 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    and I am not at at all surprised to find Peter with me on that.

    Someday, I would like to meet the woman, with her wonderful mind. Her Twitter feed is even weirder in giving a glimpse of how her mind works.


    Ooh. I must "follow." (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    Love you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:02:47 PM EST
    But no thanks

    Every Conservative in my life is going to have to explain what Obamagate is to me.


    Which is more disconnected (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:07:45 PM EST
    And delusional?

    Thinking that, right now, anyone cares about this or thinking that even if it was true this is what voters want them to be focusing on.  Right now.

    Senate Panel Begins Probe Into Hunter Biden

    May 13, 2020 at 6:19 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 163 Comments

    Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson has teed up a vote next week on a subpoena for a public affairs firm as part of his panel's Ukraine investigation involving Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, CNN reports.

    November will bring either  coup or a blue tsunami.


    I (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    expect the show trials to begin in late September. I never thought the words "disease ridden banana republic" would ever apply to the USA, but here we are.

    Straight (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:19:55 PM EST
    outta the Kremlin playbook.

    Oh..... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    PLEASE. oh please oh please......

    "If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama," Trump tweeted. "He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!"

    I thought we started down the road (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu May 14, 2020 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    ...toward a banana republic in the 2000 Presidential election.   The vote-suppression tactics combined with vote-non-counting tactics led to yet another Republican-elected-with-fewer-votes-than-his-opponent.  The Cheney/Bush years only reinforced my impression that our first-world status was waning.

    The writer is a humor columnist for the NYT (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:31:46 PM EST
    For the Washington Post, actually (none / 0) (#172)
    by Peter G on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    At least, that's where I read her.

    Oops. I have way too many digital (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:42:42 PM EST

    Washington Post (none / 0) (#175)
    by leap on Thu May 14, 2020 at 10:25:01 PM EST
    not NYT.

    Don't Become Noseblind to Trump's BS (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by john horse on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:01:27 AM EST
    Trump believes that if he overwhelms us with his BS, people will become noseblind to his BS.  Trump (to borrow from Al Franken) is nothing but a lying liar who keeps lying.  Just what we need in a pandemic (sarcasm alert).

    Great piece on Q Anon in Atlantic (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 08:51:13 AM EST
    It's interesting that these (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    folks have conspiracy theories about everything but the aims behind the concocting and spreading of conspiracy theories..

    I chalk a lot of this up to a failure of art education, in that 90% of what passes for religion and 'independent' scholarship/political theorizing in America reads more and more like a Dungeons and Dragons session gone amok. These folks have very lively imaginations with no fruitful ways of channeling it..

    This is also the result of forthright participatory democracy degenerating into lurid propagandizing and marketing and the populace internalizing that process.


    Frank Zappa might've been (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Thu May 14, 2020 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    the real "Q" way back in the eighties and early nineties..

    A lot of what's going on in the hard-right quadrants these days is putting me in mind of Frank's Thingfish and Joe's Garage..

    It's almost like Trump is getting ready to unleash on us an army of Chloroquine-addled Mammy Nuns with guns..


    Yup (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    To both

    Financial Times (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    President Trump didn't want to make preparations for the coronavirus pandemic because he was concerned doing so would sent the stock market into a panic, the Financial Times reports.

    Said one Trump confidant: "Jared had been arguing that testing too many people, or ordering too many ventilators, would spook the markets and so we just shouldn't do it... That advice worked far more powerfully on Trump than what the scientists were saying. He thinks they always exaggerate."

    How are these people not being publicly stoned.

    It is surreal and amazing (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    That republicans in the Bright hearing are still pushing hydroxychloroquine

    But they are.   One after another.

    I thought it was (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu May 14, 2020 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    LysolyCloroxiquine, or CloroxyLysolquine

    The Republicans (none / 0) (#154)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2020 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    contribution to medical science was an eyewitness survey of Trump's duodenum.  The Republican Congressman from Oklahoma was my favorite---trying to discredit this top immunologist and virologist by suggesting Dr. Bright was fraudulently taking time off, with pay, to prepare for the hearing.  

    Dr, Bright replied that he was on medical leave for anxiety and hypertension caused by the stress of being relieved of his position as well as earned vacation time.   This was not enough for this Okie, he expressed disbelief that being relieved of his post caused more stress than before being relieved.  Dr. Bright was very impressive and, at all times, professional.   Melania needs to rip that Medal of Freedom off of Rush's sorry neck and give it to a real American.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2020 at 02:45:35 PM EST
    it seemed that wasn't even that much a big deal for Bright, just one fkup among a whole cluster of them, from his point of view.

    The Republicans just couldn't let go of it, insisting it was (and still is) worth a try. One after another they affirmed wishful thinking over science.


    Outside the northeast (1.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 12, 2020 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    The rest of the country is doing much better.

    On the bright side Cuomo has just reversed his edict that nursing homes were required to admit Covid positive cases even though there were empty beds at Javits and on the hospital ship.  

    Gawd, the Trump apologia (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2020 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    really extends to contesting science on the virus.....

    As Cuomo showed, the virus is increasing in the rest of the country, while it is decreasing in New York.  Absent New York, things are getting worse....

    Don't tell me you are one of those guys who went to the restaurant in Colorado on Mother's Day which was jammed with people cheek to jowl in teenage defiance of the health orders there.

    And all these virus deniers are undoubtedly "Pro Life."  Except when old people and people working in meat packing plants and others should sacrifice themselves for the economy, so Trump can get re-elected.

    Just sick.  Eugenics from Dr. Mengele....  


    to be fair (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 12, 2020 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    Cuomo's comments are a prime example of how to distort with statistics.

    please (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 03:49:26 PM EST

    Cuomo: (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 12, 2020 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    "You look at what's happening in New York. Yes, our line is going down. Our number of cases is going down. We have turned the corner, and we're on the decline. You take New York out of the national numbers, the numbers for the rest of the nation are going up.

    I think we can fairly say that the US is pretty large and diverse chunk of real estate. There are many areas in "the rest of the nation" where "the line" is increasing, and many others where it's decreasing. So comparing NY to the "rest of the nation" seems a little simplistic to me and does a disservice to many areas in "the rest of the nation."

    Additionally, imo, it's not the raw number of cases that really tells the tale, rather it's the daily percentage of change.

    (I have no idea what NY's nor the "rest of the nation's" daily percentages are; this is not a political point it's a opinion on looking at data. For example, if you are interested in how the DOW is doing, to me, the percentage of change each day is more indicative than the raw numbers.)


    Argle (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 05:32:31 PM EST
    Bargle, it figures, you have no argument.

    Fact 1: The rates in the NYC metro area are decreasing.

    Fact 2: The rates in the rest of the country are going up.

    Those two facts seem misleading to you for some strange reason.


    Misleading or meaningless take your pick (1.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 14, 2020 at 08:56:54 AM EST
    NYC has so many cases that it has achieved a measure of herd immunity. The rest of the nation on average is still on the upslope.

    The nursing home deaths that were the result of Cuomo's now reversed policy won't be repeated. If you kill off the most vulnerable, then of course the infection rate will go down. Other more enlightened states took steps specifically aimed at protecting rather than exposing residents to the virus.


    Don't (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    be daft NYC is nowhere close to herd immunity, early antibody results suggest 20% infection rates, most experts think it needs to be above 80%.

    You guys howl and moan over true but "misleading" facts while blowing utter BS out the other end, amazing.


    Herd immunity? (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by MKS on Thu May 14, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    Where do you get this?  Never mind, I think I know.

    Klling off the most vulnerable?  Is that not what the GOP is saying we should do?  We need to sacrifice the sick and the elderly, so we can open the economy so Trump can win re-election, right?


    That's entirely baseless (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Yman on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    Not to mention moronic.

    But entirely predictable.


    Ah. So now it's (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 12, 2020 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    The rates in the NYC metro area
    You do actually understand why his comments were misleading, but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

    "The rates" are lower and/or falling much faster in many other places in the US. Why does he not compare NY to those places?


    That's (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 06:22:10 PM EST
    the way Cuomo framed it when he first rolled out the chart (it was labeled as such).  

    Nobody was trying to imply that NYC(and environs) was dropping faster than everywhere in the country, despite your strawman argument to the contrary.


    and is the comment you asked me to explain.

    As Cuomo showed, the virus is increasing in the rest of the country, while it is decreasing in New York.

    s/b "and my response (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 12, 2020 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    is the comment you asked me to explain."

    So (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 06:52:29 PM EST
    you build a whole strawman out of a poorly worded paraphrase, I guess when you are trying to own the libs 24/7 you can't be at the top of your game all the time.

    I would stick to the argle-bargle if I was you, it's less embarrassing.


    if someone posted a falsity (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 12, 2020 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    That you got involved in, maybe you should do your argle babble with that poster.

    Cuomo tried to compare something, I think you say the NYC area, to the rest of the country. He chose to make that comparison for a reason. The comparison kinda sorta seems like it is "supported" by the statistics, but in reality it's really apples to oranges, which he has got to be smart enough to know. But I guess he thought it would make himself sound good by saying it, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.

    Ah well, pols be pols.


    Why is it apples to oranges? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2020 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    New York by far has the most cases. But they have clearly got the virus on the decline.  Fairly dramatic drops in all categories.

    The rest of the nation no so much. Sure you can find a county here and there, but overall, and that was his point, the rest of the nation is not on the same clear decline of cases.


    No, it's not (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2020 at 03:51:44 PM EST
    Others have made the same comment about New York virus cases etc., going down while going up in other states.

    No distortion there at all.....


    This (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 12, 2020 at 04:36:47 PM EST
    Others have made the same comment about New York virus cases etc., going down while going up in other states.

    does not equal this

    Cuomo showed, the virus is increasing in the rest of the country, while it is decreasing in New York.

    My comment was in reponse to the latter.


    All the lies Trump puts out (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2020 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    almost hourly, and you strain at this gnat?

    No real distinction (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2020 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    You are reaching to find fault with data that makes a pretty clear point.

    Really glad (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Tue May 12, 2020 at 01:14:40 PM EST
    To know you find us disposable.

    The whole (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2020 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    conservative scam is falling apart. Yes, anyone who doesn't believe in their system of government which basically is regurgitated plantation economics and authoritarianism over private lives and decisions is disposable to them.

    Authoritarianism over private lives (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    You mean like the governor of Michigan deciding which products in the big box store you may and may not purchase. Even more authoritarian she prohibited the poor (and everyone else) from catching fish to feed themselves.

    I see you (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    have your talking points directly from the Kremlin today but the whole seed thing is conservative/Kremlin propaganda. In fact your whole post is nothing but regurgitated propaganda from the Kremlin. How does it feel to be a useful idiot?

    Are you actually (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    stupid enough to believe that poor people have lake houses?

    Thanks for proving my point.


    Poor people (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 13, 2020 at 05:14:46 PM EST
    In my experience poor people routinely fish for their own dinner at public lakes and rivers.  Michigan, the Great Lakes State, has many such opportunities.

    Lake houses?  Are you trying to pose as a limousine liberal?


    Good grief (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    You're stupid. I guess you don't realize that auto workers have lake houses. Lots of middle class people in MI have lake houses just not poor people. And rarely do poor people fish in industrial rivers.

    Do you realize that most lakes in the upper midwest don't even thaw until the end of April first of May? I guess the Kremlin didn't tell you that before they told you to pretend to care about poor people, the same ones you guys have been calling useless eaters for decades.  


    So nice to see a Southerner (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Towanda on Wed May 13, 2020 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    understand us Midwesterners.

    Yes, there is some fishing by poor here, as there still are some fairly safe lakes and rivers -- but not as much where the poor,live, and they have had made clear to them that ifnthey are black or brown, they are not welcome to fish even in public waterways outside of the industrial cities.

    And as for the lake-house season, even April is optimistic. It snowed here on Mother's Day this year. Tomorrow it will hit 70:-- but there's still time for another snow or so. . . .

    Not that snow has stopped FIPs (f-word Illinois people) from heading Up North, as my state is known, to their cabins for weeks now, violating two states' orders to stay home and worrying locals with only little tiny hospitals, if at all. Illinois has one of the highest case and death rates in the country. And counties here just across the border are suffering from that traffic.

    And now it will get worse. The same state Supreme Court of Wisconsin that sent  thousands of voters into hot zones just ruled -- again stayed safely at home to virtually meet to send Wisconsinites back into the streets and workplaces and, of course, bars -- with the deciding vote from the conservative whom we voted out st that election, the reason that Republicans so wanted to screw the urban Democrat vote to save him, so he now is now a vengeful lame duck -- that a governor cannot issue public-health orders.  Huh? And this only days after the US Supreme Court upheld the governor's authority to do so in Pennsylvania.

    Perhaps Peter, as a lawyer and as a Pennsylvanian, can explain that to me. The only explanation that I can see is that the Scott Walker holdovers continue to be crazy.


    ... the poor to fish on those lakes that have thawed?  BTW, have you never heard of ice fishing?  

    The state of Michigan certainly thinks fishing at this time of year is perfectly normal, as the season on several species is open.


    I take it that in the interests (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jondee on Thu May 14, 2020 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    of feeding the hungry, that you're also in favor of open access to all waterways and shorelines and doing away with private beaches etc?

    You should be aware that your "This Land is Your Land This Land Is My Land" mentality is a first step on the slippery slope toward collectivist godless bolshevism, Abdul.


    It's very odd (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jondee on Thu May 14, 2020 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    that it was announced recently that 20 mil kids rely on their schools for meals, yet up until recently not one prominent conservative I'm aware of has expressed an iota of concern about hunger in America..

    It's not like they haven't had years to become aware and concerned about all the people hurting in this country, so what's their excuse?

    Enlighten us, Abdul.


    LOL (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 14, 2020 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    What lakes have thawed? Do you realize that it has to be completely thawed to be safe to fish and you have to have thick enough ice to go ice fishing? Dayum, you're going down the rabbit hole about ice fishing. Go back to Vladimir and tell him we need better trolls at Talk Left and Russian Intelligence is falling down on their training. I hope he doesn't make you drink some tea or you accidentally fall off a balcony.

    As someone whose actually (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Thu May 14, 2020 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    ice fished, it's gotta to damn thick to go ice fishing.

    Unless you got Trump, Jesus, and Q, in which case you might try to walk on water.


    Yes, I forget (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:03:16 PM EST
    how thick the ice has to be. I have family in MN that ice fishes and apparently you have to watch the ice levels a lot. You have to pull your ice fishing house out on the water when the ice is thick enough for a truck and the house. They said every year there is an ice fishing house floating around that somebody screwed up getting out of the lake. They spent a good hour explaining to me how ice fishing works.

    Abdul, you are certainly (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by MKS on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:18:53 PM EST
    becoming more active tossing GOP dogma here.

    It is interesting.  It is as if the election is getting closer, and you are getting more worried, and so you are going to be a good soldier and hijack the threads here?


    One quote: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 12, 2020 at 06:38:55 AM EST
    "You can't trust this president to do the right thing. Not for one minute. Not for one election. Not for the sake of our country. You just can't. He will not change, and you know it. History will not be kind to Donald Trump. I think we all know that. Not because the history will be written by Never Trumpers, but because whenever we have departed from the values of our nation, we have come to regret it, and that regret is written all over the pages of our history. ... He has betrayed our national security. He has compromised our elections. And he will do so again. You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. Truth matters little to him. What's right matters even less. And decency matters not at all."
    - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), House Impeachment Manager (February 2020)


    Schiff (1.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    Too bad Schiff didn't use this opportunity to share the evidence of Trump's Russia collusion he bragged about for years.

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 12, 2020 at 08:09:49 PM EST
    It was on TV for a couple of weeks, testimony from a dozen witnesses. Then Schiff gave a summation.

    You must live in a remote village in another country if you were not aware of it.

    Has any American citizen ever reached your village?


    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    from the people who voted for NO EVIDENCE to be used at the trial.

    Conservatives are such a joke.


    Who's Listening? (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    So far, I don't see any of the Justices siding with Trump.

    I'm recording and jumping back and forth (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    My impression too but I would like to hear a lawyers take

    Even Clarence (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    Seemed incredulous

    NY Times Has Some Lawyers Commenting (none / 0) (#14)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:52:34 AM EST
    This (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    one stood out to me
    Asha Rangappa
    OMG, RBG asked why this is different than Whitewater, where subpoenas against President could be enforced -- "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

    President's lawyers: We don't think you should look at those cases because they are too recent.

    Also (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2020 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    "When the inquiry involves the president, that you need a somewhat higher standard with respect to purpose because the room for regulating the president is so much narrower with respect to private parties," Wall argued. "Because of the dangers of harassing and distracting and undermining the president, and that is a common theme that runs through the court cases, that the president has some measure of protection because you cannot proceed against the president as against an ordinary litigant. I'm saying Congress is not met that standard here."

    Ginsburg got in one last jab before her time ran out.

    "How did that work out in the Paula Jones case?" she said.

    RBG (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2020 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    What a treasure.

    Not so... (none / 0) (#22)
    by desertswine on Tue May 12, 2020 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    Last updated on May 11, 2020

    23,792 New Cases*
    985 New Deaths*

    I deleted the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 12, 2020 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    for spreading misinformation.

    Sorry about that. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:01:03 AM EST
    I thought the link to the CDC validated the number I posted.

    Fake (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:29:47 AM EST
    news, we are really having an epidemic of people falling down stairs
    Trump has privately complained that the death toll -- which has risen above 83,000 as of Wednesday morning -- may have been inflated using the CDC's current methodology, and he has asked for a "review" of how the deaths are counted and studied.

    He has cited hypothetical cases where a COVID-19 patient may have fallen down a flight of stairs to their death but was counted as a coronavirus fatality, and some of his allies are making similar claims.

    I have heard (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:57:23 AM EST
    this insanity from idiotic Trumpers around here. They're saying things like if you get hit by a truck it's counted as coronavirus. What a bunch of morons.

    That's the methodology (none / 0) (#180)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 15, 2020 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    If you test positive and die it counts as a virus death.

    Here is an example where the decedent drank to death.

    BTW, good luck finding any stats on those that only die with the virus that are not counted as having died from the virus.

    The hospital may be reimbursed more if it's a virus death to add financial incentive to that methodology.


    hmmm (none / 0) (#181)
    by leap on Fri May 15, 2020 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    The hospital may be reimbursed more if it's a virus death to add financial incentive to that methodology.

    Where did you get that "fact"? Oooooo, let me guess....from a dark nether region?


    They've been pushing this line ... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Yman on Fri May 15, 2020 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    ... of horse$hit in the dark regions and openly for awhile now, in order to convince their dupes that the numbers aren't real.  They never let facts get in the way of a good old, tinfoil conspiracy theory.

    Maybe, but not yet (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 12, 2020 at 05:46:33 PM EST
    On Tuesday, federal district judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order that declined to immediately close the case into President Donald Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn -- despite the fact that the Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the case.

    Sullivan wrote that "given the current posture of the case," some outside parties may want to file their own friend-of-the-court briefs on the matter, and that he would like to solicit such briefs.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2020 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    if DOJ lawyers are going to have to do explaining on why they are dismissing charges.

    Flynn's lawyer (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ragebot on Tue May 12, 2020 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    just filed a motion asking why Sullivan twenty four times in the past has refused friend of the court briefs in this case.

    Looks like Sullivan is the one who needs to do the explaining.  I really have to repeat this is a move by Sullivan to act so silly there will be a motion for him to recuse so Sullivan will not have to agree to drop the case against Flynn.


    Very much depends on what sort of briefs (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Peter G on Tue May 12, 2020 at 11:14:16 PM EST
    those were, that were refused. If they were just political screeds, and had nothing to contribute but just wanted to publicly take sides in a high-profile case, or just said they agreed with the legal argument being made by a party already, it is no surprise if the judge rejected them. I work on and file friend-of-the-court briefs all the time, and invite them in my own cases from time to time also. Judges welcome them when they have something to contribute to the decisionmaking process, but not otherwise.

    Peter G (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    do you know what the rejected friend of the court briefs were.  They were requesting Flynn years of service in combat theaters where he served honorably be taken into consideration.  Not what I would consider a political screed.

    There is little doubt Flynn was targeted because of his bashing Obama; something Obama fired him for.  There is no doubt Flynn had years of honorable service on the battle field and was a respected military officer.  Problem was Flynn and Obama had real disagreements about how to deal with things.  So Sullivan seems to allow stuff that hurts Flynn but not stuff that helps him.

    You still seem to be ducking the fact that Sullivan has made a strange and uncommon move by advertising for friend of the court briefs.  I have never known of a judge doing this.  With all your experience maybe you have seen a judge do this but I doubt it.  As I pointed out while there have been instances of judges questioning the DOJ dropping charges when no prejudice was involved there seems to be no instance of a judge opposing dropping charges when prejudice was involved.

    You also ignore my speculation that Sullivan knows the charges will be dropped and wants to get out of doing it himself and force another judge to do it.

    To review:

    Why does Sullivan deny friend of the court briefs favorable to Flynn but ask for friend of the court briefs unfavorable to Flynn, and have you ever seen a judge solicit friend of the court briefs?  I can find no instance of a judge asking for parties to submit friend of the court briefs; do you know of one.

    Can you point out a case where a judge has denied a motion to drop charges with prejudice?

    I am also curious about how long can Sullivan delay things.  Not to mention what power he has to appoint someone to argue against the DOJ position.  I know he can ask DOJ to explain their position but the answer to that is simple.  DOJ's current position is that the former DOJ lawyers failed, let me repeat that failed, to provide all the evidence they had in Flynn's favor as they are required to do under Brady.  Do you honestly think the former DOJ lawyers fulfilled their obligation under Brady?  This is the heart of DOJ's current position to drop charges; there were Brady violations.  I would love to see DOJ and Flynn's lawyers ask any lawyer Sullivan appoints how the Brady obligations were met.

    So let me ask you straight up did DOJ meet it's Brady obligation, yes or no.


    If you don't read and respond to what (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    I already wrote in response to your questions (both here and here), there is no point in engaging with you. I specifically answered each of your points, calmly and with facts based on long experience. Submissions discussing Flynn's military record, like information about his baseless and demagogic attacks on Obama and H.R.Clinton, are all highly relevant to the judge's sentencing decision, but I do not see on what legal issue they could provide a plausible basis for an amicus brief. As for psychoanalyzing the judge or his motives, that's not up my alley. I see no reason to think that Judge Sullivan is trying to do anything other than his duty as an impartial arbiter of law and justice in the case.

    Must have missed the post (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    where you answered the question 'do you think DOJ met the Brady disclosure requirements?'  Maybe you could link to that post.

    Since the heart of the DOJ motion to dismiss charges is that Brady disclosures were not met is seems like a point you need to address.


    I answered your primary question (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:57:10 PM EST
    I don't owe you any obligation to answer all your questions, particularly when you have shown no genuine interest in my responses. That said, you may be interested to know that the Supreme Court held unanimously in 2002 (as urged by the DoJ)  that the government has no pre-plea (or post-plea) Brady obligations to a defendant who voluntarily pleads guilty. Brady establishes a right to disclosure of favorable information in order to ensure a fair trial (and a fair sentencing). A defendant who pleads guilty waives the right to trial entirely; the fairness of any potential trial is thus moot.

    This entire (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed May 13, 2020 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    series of posts by you is really beside the point.

    Flynn lied about his contact with the Russians.  He admitted as much at least twice in his pleas.

    And, that is just fine by you guys?

    Try to bury the lede in an avalanche of trivia, I suppose, is the strategy here.  The guy is a dishonest kook.



    Curiously. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2020 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    Barr has not released the intercept transcript of the call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.  

    Argue (none / 0) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:18:58 AM EST
    the facts? What a strange concept.

    Problem is (none / 0) (#55)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 12:24:51 AM EST
    there is no taking sides in this case since both the DOJ and defense are now on the same side with respect to dismissing charges.  Historically the only reason judges have not granted a dismissal of charges is when the DOJ wanted to dismiss without prejudice so they could simply refile and keep dragging a case out.  Since the motion by DOJ was to dismiss with prejudice that dog won't hunt.

    I am still of the opinion that Sullivan does not want to dismiss the charges and sees a way out in having to recuse so another judge will get stuck with dismissing the charges.


    I don't think you know much (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    About the judge you didn't read at TOWNHALL.

    Some people might think this would qualify as "different" because the DOJ has become a partner in a criminal enterprise.   Not a historian or a lawyer but I think this might be an unusual  situation that calls for a judge thinking outside the box they are trying to put him in.


    Ya know, if you pose a question and invite (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    a response within my area of expertise -- which you appear to acknowledge by addressing the question to me -- and I answer you in a way that does not affirm your ill-informed, preconceived notions, then just repeating your prior claims without addressing my response is not what I would call a convincing counter-argument. Or you could just say, "Thank you for answering my question."

    Thank you for answering (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    his question.

    I really have to repeat (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Yman on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:21:04 AM EST
    Looks like Sullivan is the one who needs to do the explaining.  I really have to repeat this is a move by Sullivan to act so silly there will be a motion for him to recuse so Sullivan will not have to agree to drop the case against Flynn.

    This is nothing more than a laughable, wingnut conspiracy theory grounded in nothing more than wishful thinking.

    SOP for some, though.


    I think the only lesson (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:52:15 AM EST
    The right learned from Nixon was the need for a right wing noise machine to crank out these silly talking points.  

    Credit where its due, it has worked pretty well.  They are amazingly effective in getting them into the mouths and internet feeds.

    Not so surprising that person would be on top of them.  The thing that consistently surprises me is my dumbazz brother-in-law who has not used an internet linked device in his life and hardly ever even watches news is really just as coaxed and primed with the same BS as anyone who comments here.

    it's like they have chips in their head or something.


    Informed (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:31:26 AM EST
    or not, there is one over-riding principle that animates them. Own the libs! It overrides science, logic and even common sense. It is truly a knee-jerk
    reaction now, induced Pavlovian style by the noise machine.

    My brother explained that concept to me several years ago and I was dubious but I have come to believe it is the most important factor in understanding them.  


    Without a doubt (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:48:46 AM EST
    It's the basis of Trumps success.  This is what he understood about these people.  

    It doesn't matter what he says or does.  They never really cared about of probably even understood policy.

    They just hated the fact they lost the culture war and want revenge on the libs.  Of course a black president was the secret sauce.

    I think the next few months will be the ultimate test of that.  

    To paraphrase Divine in Female Trouble



    Just did a supply run (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    It's the second Wednesday.  That's an inside joke
    Every person at Walmart was wearing a mask.  It's the first time in this whole thing when I did not see one unmasked person

    But as it was supply run I had to go to a local Town & Country supermarket for some stuff.

    Not one person was wearing a mask.  Not one employee or customer.  Except me.  It was quick.

    My point is in the New Rural World it seems like Walmart is for libtards.  Interestingly, I saw old people (as in older than me) at the Town & Country.  FOX news viewers.  Customers were all older than me

    Make of that what you will


    Interesting (none / 0) (#157)
    by smott on Thu May 14, 2020 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    A couple weeks ago on my trips to a local stop n go store, nearly every male was mask less, and nearly every female masked.

    Now in May, everyone is masked. Of course this is in Pittsburgh suburbs, fairly blue upper-mid class....

     But still, good sign at least locally.


    Talk radio? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Thu May 14, 2020 at 06:47:36 AM EST
    That was the earliest version of the wingnut propaganda machine.  Does he spend a lot of time in his car?

    Embrace (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:53:34 AM EST
    treason to own the libs should be the motto of conservatives these days.

    More like commit suicide (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:59:02 AM EST
    To own the libs.  Treason is so last year.

    From all the legal (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Tue May 12, 2020 at 09:09:56 PM EST
    analysis I have read the question of the charges being dropped is one of when, not if.  Sullivan can try and delay the date the charges are dropped and may to some extent be able to get some publicity for those who are against it.  Problem is it is rare for friend of the court briefs to be allowed in criminal cases; less yet have a judge advertise for them.  Even in civil cases friend of the court briefs are uncommon and every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to submit one is not allowed to do so.

    I have to ask guys like Peter G how many cases has he been involved in where there were friend of the court briefs submitted; same question for our fearless leader Jeralyn.  Sullivan's rare ruling and seemingly plan to delay almost begs for a filing for a new judge.  But since Sullivan refuses to set dates for anything I suspect he may want a motion by the defense, and maybe the DOJ, to have him replaced so he will not have to dismiss the case.


    The court asking for an amicus brief (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by Peter G on Tue May 12, 2020 at 11:08:37 PM EST
    is commonplace when the two sides that are expected to be adversaries line up on the same side, particularly where this situation results from the prosecutors changing their position. You see it in the U.S. Supreme Court two or three times per year. In fact, at the Supreme Court they appoint an amicus, not just invite them, to brief the prosecution's abandoned position. It's a device to ensure that the court has the benefit of the best argument for both sides, before making a decision.

    That is a heck of a clear explanation. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 13, 2020 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    Sometimes we do actually learn something here.

    Nicely done.


    Peter g is a remarkably reliable (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:48:06 PM EST
    commenter here. So grateful.

    Wondering why Judge Sullivan did not (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue May 12, 2020 at 11:44:17 PM EST
    make an appointment.

    Today, Judge Sullivan did appoint counsel (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    to argue against acceptance of the motion to dismiss. He appointed John Gleeson, a terrific lawyer who is a former federal judge and who practices with a number of former DoJ officials. Gleeson wrote an op-ed on this subject a few days ago. He also directed the amicus to address whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury. (I wish the order specified what statements under oath by Flynn Sullivan was thinking of, but presumably he is referring to statements made by Flynn at the time of offering his guilty plea. Or did he testify at some post-plea hearing? I don't think it is fair to suggest that someone may have committed a crime like that, and yet not say by what action and when.) Perhaps ironically, there is no maximum sentence for criminal contempt, so even if the indictment is dismissed Flynn could be in more trouble now than he was a week ago.

    I think I read this is from (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    The Judge making Flynn recite his offenses and admit to all of them in court.

    Wanted to ask about that when I read it (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:36:11 PM EST
    Is this common.  To have a person recite their offenses.

    I remember thinking at the time that the way it was reported made it sound like it was not SOP.  And wondered why he did it.  If it was not.


    Absolutely required in every federal guilty plea (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    that the defendant admit under oath both that s/he is "in fact guilty" and the particular facts that give rise to that guilt, after acknowledging the prosecutor's recitation of the legal "elements" that must be proved to obtain a conviction. Not always in the form of a recitation by the defendant; sometimes just an acknowledgment of the truth of the prosecutor's recitation (which normally begins, "If this case went to trial, we would call witnesses and present evidence to show that ...."). But some judges always ask the defendant to "Tell me in your own words what you did that makes you guilty of the offense that you are pleading to, as you understand it." Not unusual.

    Absolutely required in every federal guilty plea (none / 0) (#103)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    that the defendant admit under oath both that s/he is "in fact guilty" and the particular facts that give rise to that guilt, after acknowledging the prosecutor's recitation of the legal "elements" that must be proved to obtain a conviction. Not always in the form of a recitation by the defendant; sometimes just an acknowledgment of the truth of the prosecutor's recitation (which normally begins, "If this case went to trial, we would call witnesses and present evidence to show that ...."). But some judges always ask the defendant to "Tell me in your own words what you did that makes you guilty of the offense that you are pleading to, as you understand it." Not unusual.

    Sorry about the double post (none / 0) (#104)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    I think I've only done that once or twice before.

    New wrinkle (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:33:13 PM EST
    "A key former FBI official cast doubt on the Justice Department's case for dropping a criminal charge against President Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn during an interview with investigators last week," the New York Times reports.

    "Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap's interview."

    Meanwhile, Politico reports Sullivan is signaling that he might pursue perjury or contempt charges against Flynn over his effort to abandon an earlier guilty plea to a charge of lying to the FBI.

    Judge Sullivan tasked John Gleeson ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 14, 2020 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    ... to advise him on the efficacy and pitfalls of charging Flynn with perjury, in addition to his role in arguing the DOJ's abandoned position regarding General Flynn. I'd say the judge may be about to open a can of whoopass on both Flynn and AG Bill Barr.

    To me (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    Reggie (can I call him Reggie?) seems to not be the person with whom you should f'ck.

    All I know is what I read in the newspapers


    Emmet! (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 08:01:48 PM EST
    Apologies to both Emmet and Reggie.

    I would guess it's because the DoJ and Stone (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peter G on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    have made it essentially impossible for the judge to name someone neutral and expert (presumably, a former highish-ranking Republican DoJ official), as he might ordinarily be expected to do, without subjecting that person to personal and partisan (if not downright dangerous) attack. Kind of calls for a volunteer.

    John Gleeson (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    Judge Emmet Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York, John Gleeson to argue against the dismissal of the Justice Department's case against Mike Flynn. According to the second paragraph of the filing, Sullivan directs Gleeson to address whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury, one lawyer pointed out.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:41:51 AM EST
    surprise that you neglect the extreme rarity of the DOJ dropping a case at this point.

    FOX news is reporting (none / 0) (#90)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:52:53 PM EST
    Sullivan appointed retired Judge Gleason to argue against dismissing charges, can't find an internet link yet.

    Found a link (none / 0) (#92)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 06:57:20 PM EST
    Sullivan also askes Gleason if Flynn can be found in contempt of court for pleading guilty and then trying to withdraw the plea; basically accusing Flynn of perjury.

    Gleason wrote an oped that basically outlined what Sullivan could do and both of these things were mentioned in the oped.


    Garcia ahead in CA25 (none / 0) (#56)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 12:27:46 AM EST
    Around 78K for him and 62K for Smith with 240 of 300 precincts reporting.

    final results (none / 0) (#57)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 01:18:12 AM EST
    Totally expected (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MKS on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    Dems decided to hold off on funding the race.

      Garcia will now be up for "re-election" in November 2020, at which time it is expected he will lose.  Much different turnout in November expected.


    And the race was (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    obviously affected by scandal and the resignation of Katie Hill.

    Don't cheer too much, Mr. Rage, California is blue, blue and blue.......


    So Paul Manafort gets out of prison.. (none / 0) (#79)
    by desertswine on Wed May 13, 2020 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    because he's at risk from the coronavirus while he's in confinement.  I'm OK with that because he's old (he's in his seventies), he's sick (they say), and he's no threat to anyone.  But what about everyone else who's old and sick and in prison?  They deserve the same, not just the connected.

    Easier to take without this (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    I smell Trump. (none / 0) (#82)
    by desertswine on Wed May 13, 2020 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    The Insanity of it all. (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 13, 2020 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    Distinguished son-in-law, Jared Kushner on whether the presidential election will be held on Nov 3.  "That's too far in the future to tell" Kushner responded when asked if the election might be postponed due to the pandemic.  "Nothing that I am aware of now...It's not my decision to make.  I'm not sure I can commit one way or the other, but right now that's the plan."

    Kushner tried to walk it back, but sounds like a trial balloon.  Curious, OK to open massage parlors, beauty shops, and restaurants, etc. but may have to postpone election.  The militias and other FOX besotted MAGAs will probably be storming the White House in protest for their rights? right?  

    I have been having (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    Thoughts like, maybe they want a massive second wave.  Maybe that's the point.  Maybe he thinks if the country is completely overwhelmed they can use it as an excuse to delay the election.

    Then I think I spend to much time thinking.

    It would be a pretty good excuse.


    Now (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:24:34 PM EST
    you are thinking like Stephen Miller, yeah me too being a natural born cynic. I hear Bannon has been lurking, these people are really that evil.

    I personally (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 13, 2020 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    Have absolutely no doubt they WOULD do it.  The worry is they might, with the help of Herr Barr, just pull it off.

    Peter G why are you continuing to fail (none / 0) (#107)
    by ragebot on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:21:00 PM EST
    to answer my question about the DOJ failing to meet it's Brady obligation to disclose in the Flynn case.

    This is the heart of the current DOJ motion to dismiss.  It also makes the first question Gleason will be forced to answer will be did the DOJ meet it's Brady obligation.  It is also an easy out for Flynn's lawyer to say Flynn would never have pleaded if the DOJ released the Brady information in a timely manner instead of waiting years for a forced release.

    I still contend Sullivan is looking for a way out of agreeing with DOJ to dismiss the charges by acting so strangely that he will be forced to recuse.

    Barr relIED oN lack of materiality, not (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed May 13, 2020 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    a Brady violation. Be honest.

    FBI agents are under no obligation ... (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 14, 2020 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    ... to disclose to an interviewee that they know he or she is lying. It's become rather obvious for some time that Bill Barr's DOJ had been surreptitiously leaking select documents from the case files to Gen. Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell.

    Incidentally, and this is a relevant point that you repeatedly ignore, Judge Emmet Sullivan has already ruled that Ms. Powell failed to prove a single one of her 50 claims of Brady violations. Further, Flynn's then-defense counsel was already in possession of the government's productions of the actual documents after the entry of the Standing Brady Order and before Flynn reaffirmed his guilty plea before Judge Sullivan in Dec. 2018.

    That Powell continues to traffic her conspiracy theories in court filings doesn't make them any less false. AG Barr's decision to support her bullschitt has done significant damage to the Dept. of Justice.

    So, a far more relevant question, and one that Judge Sullivan will likely ask himself fairly soon, would be why Bill Barr has effectively assigned to DOJ minions an undisclosed role as Powell's co-counsel, thus undercutting his department's own prosecutors.



    This (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2020 at 08:19:11 AM EST
    is interesting
    Federal agents seized a cellphone belonging to a prominent Republican senator on Wednesday night as part of the Justice Department's investigation into controversial stock trades he made as the novel coronavirus first struck the U.S., a law enforcement official said.
    Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, turned over his phone to agents after they served a search warrant on the lawmaker at his residence in the Washington area, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a law enforcement action.
    Normally I would be doing a happy dance but this troubles me
    Such a warrant being served on a sitting U.S. senator would require approval from the highest ranks of the Justice Department and is a step that would not be taken lightly. Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment
    Burr is a powerful Senator who was quite reasonable in regard to the Russia probe, he is in a perfect position to advance  Obamagate. Would Barr use this as a lever? IMO the only thing that would give him pause is blowback from the rest of the GOP senators. Barr is a bully with a large club the Senators are cowards, you do the math.

    I really hope I am overthinking this and I am being over cynical, I read my own words as far out conspiracy theory but after watching Barr in action it sounds plausible maybe even probable.

    There is zero doubt that Barr has and will use the DOJ as a political tool, the only question is the magnitude.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2020 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    I am not alone
    Susan Hennessey

    A lot more is needed to develop the record, but I do think this is a moment to be seriously on guard for DOJ being used to carry out political retribution. Serving a warrant on a senator is a very significant and rapid escalation and Trump has long had an axe to grind with Burr. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1260763176783745026 ...

    Replying to @emptywheel
    Honestly, my suspicion is that Trump runs the GOP such that everyone is allowed to crime, so long as they don't cross him. That's how he ran his campaign too.

    The big Q is--how did Burr cross him and is that why Burr is so anxious for a quick declassification of SSCI's report?

    Kelly Loeffler (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 08:47:59 AM EST
    Has not seen an FBI raid.  I believe she did the same thing.

    Yep but (none / 0) (#161)
    by smott on Thu May 14, 2020 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    She is loyal to Trump but Burr was too truthful re Russia's interference.

    So he gets the shaft and I bet Loeffler skates.

    Adam Serwer had a good post re this , prosecution (or not)  by Barr is now entirely about ones loyalty to Trump.


    As far as we know (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 14, 2020 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    but she did step down from the committee she was on.

    Burr (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    Barr got (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    what he wanted.  The new acting chair can take the newest sham from here.  

    Lives lost (none / 0) (#124)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    Your new found concern for the poor (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:25:13 AM EST
    Is heartwarming.  Really.

    It's not new found (none / 0) (#139)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    The lockdown hurts the poor most of all.  Lockdown cheerleaders (disproportionately those with financial stability) have a lot to answer for.

    So, Abdul (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by jondee on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    since you're so concerned about the fate of those most vulnerable among us, I suppose it's a given that you favor some form of Universal Basic Income during this unique period of hardship and stress for so many.

    Of course you are. Why wouldn't you be, given that the well-being of your fellow Americans is your first priority.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Zorba on Fri May 15, 2020 at 11:06:09 AM EST
    He must favor Universal Health Care, so all those who are sick don't wind up with outrageous co-pays (assuming they have health insurance).

    Not what the article says (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Yman on Thu May 14, 2020 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    See if you can tell the difference between the words "lockdown" and "pandemic".  If you're still having trouble, try consulting a dictionary.

    But the sudden concern for the ultra poor - especially the brown ones from other countries - is very encouraging!  It's almost like conservatives haven't spent the last several decades locking them in cages, calling them r@pists from "$hithole" countries, whining about humanitarian aid - and just generally ignoring their plight.  A cynical person might think this sudden concern is, in fact, insincere and hypocritical.

    BTW - The only ones with a "lot to answer for" are the ignorant wingnuts who ignore scientists and push herd immunity as a solution while conflating the pandemic with the "lockdown".


    The virus will be with us (none / 0) (#127)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    With us until 60 to 70% of the population is exposed.


    About the only slightly good news is that the median age of decedents is in the 80's in some states.

    Conservatives have been pushing the ... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Yman on Thu May 14, 2020 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    ... herd immunity claim more and more as a solution.  If they think this is a legitimate course of action, they should put their money where their mouths are and due their civic duty by getting infected.

    I want to see (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 14, 2020 at 06:03:30 PM EST
    ...ONE. of those people who is okay with sacrificing old people, shoot an elderly relative on live TV to show they are serious.

    Now, now (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Sun May 17, 2020 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    these people are Pro Life, dontcha know?

    your concern for the elderly (4.91 / 11) (#130)
    by leap on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    is also heartwarming.

    Sucks to be (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 11:54:04 AM EST

    Abdul finds (none / 0) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    the median age of the 8os a category of good news, meaning the middle of the distribution of the death numbers  is in the 80s. .  An assessment worthy of Dr, Mengele, the angel  of death.

    But, ok....wait (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 01:21:35 PM EST
    They are Trump voters. ??  Right.

    I thinki this has not been thought through


    I wonder what will happen when... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri May 15, 2020 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    I wonder what will happen when this logic gets applied to Ebola.  

    I also wonder if other countries will continue to prohibit travel to/from the USofA for years to come.

    When I consider that the USofA (less than 5% of the world's population) has had about one-quarter of the infections and one-quarter of the CoVid-19 deaths that have been identified/reported worldwide, I have to admit that AAA may be largely correct with "The virus will be with us...until 60 to 70% of the population is exposed", because efforts to isolate or slow the spread of the virus in the US are being undermined.  

    Later, we can really strengthen the herd with polio and smallpox.

    BTW, herd immunity usually takes something over 70% immunity in a population (not just exposure - those who die don't count) - but for some viruses the breaking point is around 95% of the population needing immunity.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    Lawrence O'Donnell will host "A Last Word Special: Joe Biden with Stacey Abrams" live on Thursday, May 14th at 10pm ET on MSNBC.

    Do you have a question for them? Fill out the form below for a chance to participate! If selected, an MSNBC producer will reach out with detailed instructions.

    Interesting, right? (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    In this news environment you need to break through.  Two central political figures don't appear together in prime time, late prime time BTW so the west coast gets it too, without a larger point.

    To be clear, regardless of the point I think this is brilliant.

    It just works.  It works if he's not picking her.  It works if he is picking her.  It puts the issue away.

    I will probably stop streaming HALFWORLDS from HBO Asia long enough to see what the point is.


    Yes (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2020 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    He has done events with other possible VPs

    I thought Stacy was off the list.  There has been a backlash to her IMO admirably honest campaign to be the VP and a real campaign to eliminate her from consideration.  Google..

    interesting.  That all.


    Watched a bit of it (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 15, 2020 at 07:18:11 AM EST
    I thought they were both pretty good.

    Maybe shouldn't mention this but Biden's color looks odd.  At first I thought it was my tv.  He looked really hot pink.  Like he had a raging fever.  Not suggesting he did. Or that there is anything wrong.   It was just odd.  Not as odd as Trump orange but odd.  Maybe a little makeup next time.

    Anyone else notice this?  


    Yes, both Joe (none / 0) (#184)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 15, 2020 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    and Stacey were very good.  And, I liked what Joe said, his plans for the country (which seem to have taken on a much more progressive hue) and his fiery criticisms and obvious disdain for Trump and his henchmen.  No pardon for Trump.

    Stacey, a Yale law graduate, is impressive.  As I have suggested previously, the vice presidential contenders bench is deep.  In addition to those qualities expected for the first in succession, Joe's selection should hinge on the running mate who can best bring out the voters.  The election of a Democratic President will be determined by turnout.


    Captain, (none / 0) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 15, 2020 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    I did not notice any particular or unusual coloration.  Remote video communications do seem to distort appearances, so that may account for your observation.  The other night I saw Chuck Rosenberg, a frequent contributor on MSNBC, and did not recognize him.  

    My money (none / 0) (#160)
    by smott on Thu May 14, 2020 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    Is on Kamala.
    Though apparently polls strongly favor Warren.
    But we can't afford to lose the MA Senate seat.

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 15, 2020 at 06:44:59 AM EST
    Kampala Harris would be a good choice. Ideologically, Warren would be my first choice but we must maintain her Senate seat.

    Apologies to Kamala Harris (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 15, 2020 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    Not sure how the "creative" spelling of her name occurred. 🤔

    If you're on autocorrect, ... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 15, 2020 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    ... and since Kamala is obviously not a common name, it likely substituted the name of Uganda's capital city, Kampala.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 16, 2020 at 06:08:11 PM EST
    That might explain it.

    Biden Talking to Warren (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 15, 2020 at 07:28:33 AM EST

    May 15, 2020 at 6:47 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 154 Comments

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren talks to Isaac Dovere of The Atlantic about the possibility of being Joe Biden's running mate:

    "Suddenly, the senator with all the ideas about remaking the economy seems enticing to the Biden team and it is looking seriously at picking her, according to people familiar with the campaign's thinking. And suddenly, the senator with all the ideas about remaking the economy is enticed, and thinking seriously about what the job would entail, according to people who described her own thinking on the subject--and according to Warren herself "

    "Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died. Their conversation was `one person who'd lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,' she said. Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."

    Some (none / 0) (#169)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2020 at 07:11:27 PM EST
    industrial strength inanity here
    "When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."

    This is our country (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 15, 2020 at 07:24:21 AM EST
    Brian Stelter: "I usually come up short when I reach for words to describe the radicalization of the far right in America. This short video conveys it like no words can."