Also, Rep. Hunter spent $1,500 of campaign funds on Steam. Millennials, phew.
Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Math?
Video games. Like, if you want to play Civ, you have to have a Steam account.
And if you want to kick in to send a scarf to a sick colleague, you have to have venmo.
It ain't over until somebody blows his mind out in a car.
(Studiously ignoring 1 because I'm afraid to tally up how much I've spent on Steam over the years.)
He used campaign funds for bunches of other stuff too.
The Steam stuff came out years ago, and I thought he claimed it was a mistake and paid it back? I should have realized that where there's smoke there's fire, and that wouldn't be the extent of the corruption.
True story: I still play Age of Empires on Steam on a computer that isn't hooked to the internet anymore.
Why would Cohen's guilty plea not include cooperation?
Because he wants a pardon is my guess.
What if Seinfeld but present day Obama plays Frank Costanza?
The whole best part of today's news is Cohen's plea where it goes, "In or about January 2017, COHEN left the company and began holding himself out as the 'personal attorney' to Individual-1, who at that point had become president of the United States."
I'm sure Trump appreciates that effort to keep his name out of it and will pardon shortly.
If Trump pardons Cohen, can't Cohen be compelled to testify, no taking the 5th?
At some point Putin steps in and starts knocking off cooperating witnesses, right?
Do you remember, your president Nixon?
Do you remember, the bills from Steam we paid?
Or even yesterday?
Oh what can it mean,
for a pee-tape believer,
and an orange-dyed peen
An aspect of the Rudy Giuliani's evil confused uncle act that I sometimes forget is that he could be a potential witness/subject/target of Mueller's probe (maybe not so much on Russia* stuff, so maybe SDNY).
*One of the "defenses" of DT emerging seems to be that boring old domestic crimes don;t matter, only Russian "collusion" itself.
In his interview with Hannity in early May, Rudy pretty much conceded the truth of the fact pattern in the Daniels' payoff stuff, merely arguing that it was not a crime. (Although I think he or Trump tried to walk back some of it later.)
It's like there's no thought given to anything but the immediate future.
19. One of the things Cohen has pleaded guilty to appears to be making payments in re McDougal and Daniels. So he evidently thinks it was a crime, and so does his lawyer.
His lawyer also says Cohen did so on direct instruction of Trump.
If somebody tells you do to it, it's legal.
21: Right. SDNY, Cohen and his lawyer agree that it is a crime.
Rudy per usual has been all over the map, but during the Hannity thing he agreed to most of the facts in those charges (Hannity tried to get a real-time walk back but Rudy charged ahead.)
Kavanaugh confirmed 50-49, SCOTUS declares 5-4 that all campaign finance limits and regulations are unconstiutional limitation of free speech, so there was no crime.
Taxation is theft so tax evasion is self-defense.
Rudy and Dersh have already gone there with collusion- It's just politics to get dirt on your enemy, regardless of where it comes from, so there's no crime in seeking information about your opponent.
In unfortunate naming coincidences, today's political analysis column in the Boston Globe on Michael Cohen was assigned to columnist Michael Cohen.
Griswold v Connecticut gives you an absolute right to pay people to keep quiet about having had sex with you.
As long as you send the check by US mail.
The first amendment gives freedom of the press say long as they don't question the president when the president is a white man.
I hope Henry Winkler plays Michael Cohen when they make the movie.
Get all the non-rapey cast members of Arrested Development. They can even reprise the same roles.
The three* most unambiguously hopeful signs from yesterday in my opinion.
1) Duncan Hunter indictment. "Culture of corruption" in the Republican party unmuddied by Trumpian dissonance should be a win for Dems in mid-terms. (Although as some have pointed out Hinter was 2nd person in Congress to endorse Trump after recently indicted Chris Collins. Third was Jeff Sessions...)
2) A jury convicting Manafort. I was afeared of at least one Trumpoid ratfucker on the jury. (Am semi-interested in the jury split on the hung counts.) Someone made the point that I think I agree with that a hung jury on some counts works to Mueller advantage as it helps remove (a bit**) a potential Republican "fix is all the way in" narrative.
3) Incrementally additions to what should be the growing awareness of all who are close to trump (or potentially so in the future) of where you are likely to end up. Maybe their loved ones as well.
*Cohen is *potentially* the biggest, but it just seems too juicy and the hell if I'm going to bank on anything from a Lanny Davis-run show.
**They will of course feel unconstrained, but it may keep the press from going there with them.
I'm watching Transparent right now (despite Jeffrey Tambor's harrassment and IRL awfulness). The three grown kids on the show are a trainwreck in a way that I find disconcerting. Obviously the conceit is that the trans character is the least perverted and is the best of the bunch, but I wish the kids weren't quite so awful.
There is in fact so much of Donald Trump in Jeffrey Tambor's character.
"I got the worst fucking attorneys."
It's not a threadjack when a FPP does it.
Hey Stormcrow, remember how you said you were worried that the Republicans would hammer on some arbitrary outrage source to swing the vote in November, possibly anthem kneeling? Good ol' slimy Newt is toying with Mollie Tibbetts, despite all the issues with that case they'd have to handwave aside. Going to war with the army you have, and all that.
38: And even if it is a threadjack (and it isn't!) heebie can pardon herself.
And anyway, you can't arrest a FPP for crimes committed during or before a front page post. That's just the law.
Obviously the conceit is that the trans character is the least perverted and is the best of the bunch, but I wish the kids weren't quite so awful.
Does the implication follow, that the show still presents transness as a form of wrongdoing, just a venal and lovable kind, like pulling pranks?
Religious freedom requires every commercial transaction to be preceded or followed by "Merry Christmas" from December 8th through 25th.
42: Nope. The character is presented as a woman who has recently transitioned, end of matter.
At least, that's my take. She does do dorky, awkward things as part of who she is, but I take that as part of the "parent" not part of the "trans".
Are you making the same joke as the people who named the show?
I will claim as my own any pun left unattended for more than 8 comments.
"You know, I put -- I don't know if you know but I tweeted about the payments. But they didn't come out of campaign. In fact, my first question when I heard about it was did they come out of the campaign because that could be a little dicey. And they didn't come out of the campaign and that's big. But they weren't - that's not a - it's not even a campaign violation. If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation but he had a different attorney general and they viewed it a lot differently."
There is in fact so much of Donald Trump in Jeffrey Tambor's character.
George Sr. had (stole) the "Build A Wall" idea back in 2012.
Do you all think that Manafort hasn't flipped yet because he's scared of being poisoned with polonium? I don't understand why he's subjecting himself to all this.
Has he been offered the chance to flip? He's kind of a long-standing criminal.
Or rather, has he been offered a good deal to flip.
What are there things you shouldn't put up your butt?
Smart phones, on the other hand, work well in the butt.
What, are there things you shouldn't put up your butt?
60/61: Without a base, without a trace.
57: I suppose, but I thought they'd just put him away for non-federal crimes.
Trump says impeaching him would cause economic crash. I'd have thought it would send the Dow through the roof. Am I wrong?
64: My guess is that it wouldn't have that dramatic an effect either way.
I love the idea the only thing keeping the stock market from collapsing is "this thinking".
That's a nice economy you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
OUR FINAL OFFER TO YOU IS THIS: NOTHING.
After the election the stock market started skyrocketing because they knew there would be a monster tax cut. Now that's already happened and impeaching him would keep Republicans in charge, so I don't think it would have any effect.
OUR OFFER TO YOU IS, LIKEWISE, NOTHING.
I think your trading partners are trying to say that right now nothing threatens the interests of US shareholders more than Trump's trade wars. Literally nothing.
At this point I've given up on predicting what will or will not tank the stock market.
Agree with 72. In which case Trump impeachment should have a positive effect on at least some sectors.
In other news, Trump has come out against the concept of RICO investigations, which (while self-serving) reflects his deeply held belief that consequences are for little people.
And that conspiracies are great.
But who knew that pulling them off was so complicated?
Not many people know this, but keeping conspiracies quiet is actually very difficult
78: It's not that hard! Still haven't caught me!
75: It might instead reflect his principled and long-held view that the Mafia are a bunch of good fellas you can crack a joke with before you sit down to do business.
Dear Mineshaft. A girl I last saw when she was seven and tramping through a wood behind her aunt (a dear friend of mine) all the while telling her "You're so, so, so so so so stupid!" is now the head of communications for a "liberal conservative" thinktank.
Her family were very kind and helpful to me when I was a starving freelance 30 years ago. She writes to me out of the blue, saying how much she enjoyed the holiday of the woodland walk, and will I write something for their conference pamphlet. Money is not mentioned. I have written back saying that money should be mentioned. Is this mercenary? More to the point, is this more mercenary than she is being? And what will the aunt think of it all? Please advise.
81: Yes, it's mercenary. That's good. Writers are allowed to get paid. Writers in their 50s or older (since you were a freelancer 30 years ago, apparently), are allowed to ignore requests that don't mention compensation or respond caustically to suggestions that compensation in a form other than currency would be adequate, if they want to.
So, the publisher of the National Enquirer did get immunity.
Surely mercenary tendencies are exactly what liberal conservative think tanks encourage.
My apologies for 83. I didn't even notice the guy's last name was Pecker and make a bad pun.
|| Anyone who understands Australian politics: why are they so prone to successful intra-party leadership challenges in the government? |>
Are they really? I had that same impression, but looking at actual terms in office (since 1980 or so) 3-4 years seems to be the norm.
Four successful challenges in the last decade, though. (Gillard 2010, Rudd 2013, Turnbull 2015, new guy 2018)
True that. I'm just predisposed to wariness since deposition of a prime minister is one of only two reasons Australia ever makes the news.
I mean, I guess that's a relatively normal leadership length, but it's an unusual way to transition. Looking at UK/Canada/NZ/Ireland, if I'm reading things right, it's happened once in all of those in my lifetime, when Jenny Shipley challenged Jim Bolger for leadership of the NZ National Party in 1997. Resignation (either of a successful long-term leader at the end of their career, or under scandal) is a much more common form of intra-party Prime Ministership transfer.
What's the other reason? Being racist against Chinese people?
I mean, the racism isn't exactly news, right?
I suppose not. My other guesses were "being racist towards non-Chinese people" and "being a white genocidal frontier colonial state that doesn't have frequent gun massacres."
I guess sometimes they have droughts too. So I'll settle on ousters and terrible weather as the only things that happen in Australia.
This says Australia is indeed abnormal. Haven't read it yet.
The paper in 95 considers the UK, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, with more detail on Australia; it has a big detailed table on Liberal and Labor successions since 1945.
No less than 67% of all forced resignations take place in the United Kingdom or Australia. In contrast, 49% of all voluntary, self-initiated resignations occurred in the two other countries, which also exhibited higher scores on the average length of leader tenurePutting that together, it seems (IDK why) that Australian politics is weighted more than usual to individuals and factions rather than parties; this makes it easier to attempt coups and to survive after losing a fight; and coup attempts lead to positive feedback loops of vendetta and instability.
[...]
It should be noted that virtually no Australian party leader who had a leadership contest forced upon him enjoyed a long life at the top ahead of him after winning it (cf Table 1). Once the cat of speculation was out of the bag, leadership consolidation proved to be elusive. Most found themselves in a downward spiral of post-challenge recriminations, retributions, disunity, bad publicity, sliding polls, brooding rivals and thus continued leadership speculation--in short a climate in which a new, more vigorous challenge became virtually a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[...]
In our study period Labor leaders from Calwell onwards have often had deputies or senior portfolio holders whom they mistrusted or despised, and who coveted their job; the same goes for Liberal leaders since Gorton. These unholy alliances are imposed on incumbents by political necessities (Labor's factionalism, the Liberals' regional and personalistic groupings) exacerbated by the caucus-centred mode of leadership selection that prevails in Australia.
[...]
more than most of their peers in other countries, Australian party leaders are faced with the problem of dealing with their predecessors: many of them stay in politics and are thoroughly involved in power-brokering for years if not decades after their own exits
it's an unusual way to transition. Looking at UK/Canada/NZ/Ireland, if I'm reading things right, it's happened once in all of those in my lifetime, when Jenny Shipley challenged Jim Bolger for leadership of the NZ National Party in 1997. Resignation (either of a successful long-term leader at the end of their career, or under scandal) is a much more common form of intra-party Prime Ministership transfer.
Yeah, but don't forget that sometimes prime ministers resign because someone's issued a leadership challenge and they can see the writing on the wall - as in 1990 with T******r in the UK. Effectively that is a transition due to an party leadership challenge.
(I'm assuming here that you are over 28. If not I apologise.)
96: Thanks! Hrm. Maybe it's due to the large states allowing politicians to develop strong regional power bases? Most famously in the form of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, although he wasn't ever successful in federal politics.
97: I probably should've counted She Who Shall Not Be Named--I had forgotten the transition was so acrimonious. The personalities-and-factions situation Mossy described sounds like it would apply to the Conservative Party then as well. Jean Chrétien was also a borderline case, but he was planning to retire anyway. And if we wanted to stretch with an American analogy, we could also include LBJ.
98.1: That's what I was thinking. Australia only federated in 1901, so I'd guess the parties inherited colonial power bases. Maybe widely divergent regional interests helped keep them alive? Also ISTR Australia has some very powerful old-money families.
98.2: The authors point out it's often impossible to distinguish jumping/being pushed/ jumping-to-keep-from-being-pushed.
AIUI LBJ was considered a surefire winner had he run.
All I know about Australian elections is that they have proportional representation so every seat is contested by like 12 parties because single-issue groups start parties to try to get a seat in the house for "The Animal Rights Party" and whatnot.
CANDIDATES FOR FOOBAR-BRISBANE
- Andrew Black, Centrist Party
- Michelle Brown, Liberal Centrist Party
- Margaret Grey, Christian Centrist Party
- Bruce Green, Nationalist Party
- Bob White, Nationalist Alliance
- Bob Williams, Australia First Party
- Fred Williams, Australia First Alliance
- Deborah Williams, Science Party
- Fiona Williams, Animal Rights Party
- Claire Williams, Farmers Party
- Margaret Williams, Christian Family Party
- Adam Williams, Hunting and Fishing Party
- Bob Anderson, Bob Anderson Party
- Kevin Donaldson, Kevin Donaldson Alliance
Why do they all have the same last name?
The Science Party is all about legalizing cousin marriage.
It's not very likely to produce genetic defects unless you make a family tradition of it for generations.
Do we have a resident Australian? One of Many?
We used to have a New Zealander, which is basically the same thing.
Australia literally offered NZ statehood and they were like, no we're cool.
100. Only one named Bruce? And no one named Kobe?
The CFO of Trump Org also got immunity.
||
NMM to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous
|>
Let me know which was first against the wall.
The directors of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Well, I must say this is really interesting: the vultures are circling, as it were, around Trump and his associates -- and family. I hold out hope that the judicial system actually still has some teeth in it. We'll see.
A diet like his can't be good for a prostate that old. No wonder.
Is Dershowitz right that the biggest threat to Trump is the New York investigation. It seems reasonable, but it's also being said by Dershowitz. Also, am I understanding correctly that this is the U.S. attorney in New York, not the NY Attorney General?
119: Both those offices are investigating different things.
I read more carefully. He's worried about the U.S. Attorney in New York. Also, about who will invite him to lunch.
