Yesterday on The Stephanie Miller Show (Sirius XM Progress channel), a call-in guest columnist pointed out that Trump, Cohn, et alia, are professional liars. They do all their business by lying and they have lived their entire lives based on lies. They know nothing else.
And they've been able to get away with it for their entire lives. Until now. Now they can and will be held accountable for their lies and they have no idea how to handle it, let alone any idea that it could possibly happen. The irony is that if Trump had never been elected, then they could still be getting away with all their lies.
In the meantime, Trump is actually quite helpful in determining what is true. I just take whatever Trump says and assume the opposite. The vast majority of the time, I'm right.
quote:Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) at his November 2017 confirmation hearing to become NASA administrator. Bridenstine was confirmed as NASA's leader on April 19, 2018.
Jim Bridenstine shouldn't necessarily expect smooth sailing now that he's finally in as NASA administrator, experts say.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Bridenstine yesterday (April 19), more than seven months after President Donald Trump nominated the Oklahoma congressman for NASA's top post. The final vote was 50-49 and strictly along party lines, with all Republicans supporting Bridenstine and all Democrats, along with both independents, opposing him. (Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is sidelined by health issues and did not vote.)
Such division is pretty much unheard of for NASA chiefs, who have generally been confirmed without much dissension or debate. And it will likely make Bridenstine's job a bit tougher, at least in the early going, said space policy expert John Logsdon.
"The fact that it has gone on so long and been so contentious gives him more challenges than his predecessors had," Logsdon, a professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, D.C., told Space.com. "He's got an uphill climb to establish that he's a leader for all of NASA and all of the country."
The senators opposed to Bridenstine's nomination have cited, among other issues, his past statements questioning the reality of human-driven climate change (though the 42-year-old congressman has walked back such statements recently) and his lack of professional aerospace experience.
"The NASA administrator should be a consummate space professional," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said during a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday (April 18). "That's what this senator wants a space professional, not a politician, as the head of NASA."
This will make America embarrassed again. Sheesh....
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Looks like Trump will finally visit the UK - mid July looks likely. It's suggested that he'll meet the Queen - poor girl.
Still old Queenie has shaken hand with far worse people than him...
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
And it looks like Rudy Giuliani will be joining Trumps legal team to get the investigation behind him. Rudy was very instrumental in crafting the Travel ban, and unwittingly gave enough information to the public showing it was a Muslim ban, not anything else.
quote:I'm not thinking about what it would take to convince me but what it would take to convince the DOJ or the House.
Well, the DNC is now suing the Trump campaign, Wikileaks, and Russia regarding this.
Considering that the last time they did this was regarding Nixon/Watergate...and that they were right...and they won a settlement from the RNC, I think the idea that there is "nothing there" is a bit disingenuous. The Russians started their attack in 2015. We know they were getting documents on April 22, 2016. Papadapoulos was told on April 26 that the Russians had documents. He then told the campaign.
Assuming this is true, how is this not conspiracy? Especially since three months later, Trump is going on national television to tell Russia to hack the Democrats?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
That's how long it took for Trump's agitated interview on Fox and Friends this morning to be used against him.
With regard to the documents seized from Cohen's office, Cohen is putting up a claim of attorney-client privilege, but all of his work doesn't seem to be that of an attorney as all of his clients keep saying he didn't do legal work for them:
As the Court is aware, after originally stating that the Government seized "thousands, if not millions," of pages of privileged documents, Cohen subsequently identified three current clients. Of those three clients, one, Sean Hannity, has since said, "Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees." Another, President Trump, reportedly said on cable television this morning that Cohen performs "a tiny, tiny little fraction" of his overall legal work. These statements by two of Cohen's three identified clients suggest that the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents, further supporting the importance of efficiency here.
You don't get to have it both ways. Either he was your lawyer and this is work product or he wasn't and this isn't.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:George Simon, a clinical psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of narcissism. Otherwise I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.
Psychology text books will be written about Trump.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Either he was your lawyer and this is work product or he wasn't and this isn't.
1. A lawyer does not have to be paid to have an obligation of confidentiality. 2. Protection for attorney work product and privilege are two slightly different things. Work product protection applies only to documents that are generated in anticipation of litigation. The possible subject matter coverage is very wide.
On the other hand, attorney-client privilege applies only to conversations with a lawyer for the purpose of gaining legal advice and not conversations with a third party. The subject matter that can be covered is very limited. If you were talking about a business deal, then the privilege would not cover the discussion.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
quote:Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appears to be giving the thumbs-down on President Donald Trump attending his funeral.
According to the New York Times on Saturday, members of the ailing maverick’s inner circle have informed the White House that their current plan for his funeral is for Vice President Mike Pence to attend the service to be held in Washington’s National Cathedral but not President Trump.
Trying to understand this part, and something I read related to this:
NoNukes writes:
On the other hand, attorney-client privilege applies only to conversations with a lawyer for the purpose of gaining legal advice and not conversations with a third party. The subject matter that can be covered is very limited. If you were talking about a business deal, then the privilege would not cover the discussion.
So do I have this right:
If Trump talks about his own legal matters to Cohen or Giuliani, that is privileged.
If Trump talks about his own legal matters, including the conversations with Cohen and Giuliani, with a golfing buddy, that is not privileged. Can the golfing buddy be subpoenaed and compelled to testify about the conversation? Does that make the conversations between Trump, Cohen and Giuliani non-privileged? If so, does that mean that Cohen and Giuliani can be compelled to testify about the same legal matters discussed with the golfing buddy?
If Trump, Cohen or Giuliani talks about Trump's legal matters to the press, is whatever they talk about public and no longer privileged? And if so how broadly is that interpreted? For example, if Giuliani tells the press that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment, do other related matters become non-privileged, such as conversations between Trump and Cohen about the Daniels payoff?
The Washington Post says last night's opening SNL skit was "straddling a fine line between being clever and convoluted," but I think it is crystal clear for anyone who's been following the news:
™ Version 4.2
(1)
