[Winstonm]

Anyone see a pattern here? (emphasis added)

July 28: GOP Congressman Daryl Issa speaking about Dennison:

Quote

If he’s proven to have not told the whole truth about the fact that campaigns look for dirt, and if someone offers it, you listen to them, nobody’s going to be surprised,” Issa told Fox News. “There are some things in politics that you just take for granted.”

July 29: Chris Christie, Dennison ally and former New Jersey governor on "This Week":

Quote

“collusion is not a crime.”

July 30: Rudy Giuliani, Dennison ttorney, speaking to CNN:

Quote

"Four months, they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians," Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, continued. "You start analyzing the crime -- the hacking is the crime. ... The President didn't hack.

July 31: Jay Sekulow, Dennison attorney, on Fox and Friends:

Quote

″There’s not any evidence of collusion here involving our client and the Russians,” Sekulow said. “But collusion isn’t a crime.”

July 31: Dennison tweet:

Quote

Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!

Two comments:
One) It appears one side is trying awfully hard to pre-empt the effect of proof that Dennison had knowledge of the Russian meeting. Does this suggest that proof is out there and Cohen and Mueller may already have it?

Two) If collusion is not a crime, and if, as Dennison tweeted, it was Hillary and the Democrats who colluded, why does he want her "locked up"?

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-31, 12:11, said:

Two comments:
One) It appears one side is trying awfully hard to pre-empt the effect of proof that Dennison had knowledge of the Russian meeting. Does this suggest that proof is out there and Cohen and Mueller may already have it?

Two) If collusion is not a crime, and if, as Dennison tweeted, it was Hillary and the Democrats who colluded, why does he want her "locked up"?

"Lock her up" is the conservative equivalent of "Hands up, don't shoot!". It highlights the fact that there is a two tiered system of justice in this country one for the privileged and well connected individuals and a different one for everybody else. Conservatives just happen to believe this country's legal system should be about equal justice for all. Progressives seem more interested in changing this country into a banana republic with their American version of a "politburo" in charge.

If there's proof out there, it better be more than the word of a sleaze ball lawyer who's being threatened with criminal prosecution and imprisonment as a stick to make him "come clean". How can you trust anything he's liable to say in that situation? That is the kind of perversion of the justice system you'd expect to see in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia not the United States. Sadly, it seems like that's the only way the Special Counsel is trying to make his case about collusion.

[awm]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-31, 14:37, said:

"Lock her up" is the conservative equivalent of "Hands up, don't shoot!". It highlights the fact that there is a two tiered system of justice in this country one for the privileged and well connected individuals and a different one for everybody else. Conservatives just happen to believe this country's legal system should be about equal justice for all. Progressives seem more interested in changing this country into a banana republic with their American version of a "politburo" in charge.

If there's proof out there, it better be more than the word of a sleaze ball lawyer who's being threatened with criminal prosecution and imprisonment as a stick to make him "come clean". How can you trust anything he's liable to say in that situation? That is the kind of perversion of the justice system you'd expect to see in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia not the United States. Sadly, it seems like that's the only way the Special Counsel is trying to make his case about collusion.

In a civilized country you need a verdict before you lock someone up. Despite thousands of hours of hearings an hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, Congressional Republicans have not managed even an indictment against Hillary Clinton, much less a guilty verdict. Now obviously there are cases where the prosecutor has some alterior motive that leads him not to indict despite having a good case — this is what happens much of the time with police wrongdoing, because prosecutors are usually friendly with cops and need to maintain that relationship in order to do their jobs. But it’s hard to believe that Congressional Republicans have any such sympathetic relationship to Hillary Clinton, given the amount of rhetoric against her and the amount of time and money spent to investigate and re-investigate her. If you think innocent women should be locked up because the members of a political party don’t like them, you’re really the one evoking communist Russia here!

As for Trump, Mueller already has multiple indictments and several guilty pleas. So at least some people are guilty of something here! In any criminal enterprise, it’s likely that the people who know most about the crime are co-conspirators or friends or employees of the guilty party. These people are not going to voluntarily testify in a way that incriminates themselves or their friend or the guy signing their paycheck... unless you offer them something in exchange! So it’s very much standard procedure to go after the minions and then offer them leniency if they testify against the boss. This is always how gangs and crime families and other large criminal enterprises get taken down in the US. Of course you can’t threaten innocent people with jail time (if they think a judge will rule “not guilty” your offer of leniency is worth nothing, and unlike in Russia we don’t lock people up and torture them until they “confess”). And of course it’s often the case that these criminal minions are kinda slimy and might lie in order to get a lighter sentence, so you have to corroborate what they say with other evidence.

You don’t know what evidence Mueller has (he hides his cards well)... but he’s too experienced to bring a case that comes down to Cohen’s word against Trump’s. The idea is more that Cohen knows where the bodies are buried, so Mueller can go dig them up... not that we decide to just believe one serial liar over another.

The change of strategy from “no collusion occurred” to “collusion is not a crime” is interesting though — it seems like prepping to deal with news that solid evidence of collusion may be about to surface!

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-31, 14:37, said:

Sadly, it seems like that's the only way the Special Counsel is trying to make his case about collusion.

Special counsel isn't trying to make a case about collusion

Trump's going down for a combination of

1. Obstruction of justice
2. Criminal conspiracy
3. Money laundering

On the obstruction of justice piece, there's a very good article in today's NYRB

https://www.nybooks....hen-he-knew-it/

Here's the key quote

Quote

If, therefore, Trump understood the legal jeopardy that Flynn faced, that would demonstrate such intent—and make for a much stronger case for obstruction against the president. Conversely, if Trump believed that Flynn was no longer under criminal investigation, or had been cleared, the president could not have had corrupt intent. But previously undisclosed evidence indicates just the opposite—that President Trump was fully informed that Flynn was the target of prosecutors.

I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation. This memo, the existence of which I first disclosed in December in Foreign Policy, was, as one source described it to me, “a timeline of events [in the White House] leading up to Flynn’s resignation.” It was dated February 15, 2017, and was prepared by McGahn two days after Flynn’s forced resignation and one day after Trump’s meeting with Comey. As I reported, research for the memo was “primarily conducted by John Eisenberg, the deputy counsel to the president and legal adviser to the National Security Council,” who, in turn, was “assisted by James Burnham, another White House counsel staff member.”

During my reporting, I was allowed to read the memo in its entirety, as well as other, underlying White House records quoted in the memo, such as notes and memos written by McGahn and other senior administration officials. My reporting for this story is also based on interviews with a dozen former and current White House officials, attorneys who have interacted with Mueller’s team of investigators, and witnesses questioned by Mueller’s investigators.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-31, 14:37, said:

"Lock her up" is the conservative equivalent of "Hands up, don't shoot!". It highlights the fact that there is a two tiered system of justice in this country one for the privileged and well connected individuals and a different one for everybody else. Conservatives just happen to believe this country's legal system should be about equal justice for all. Progressives seem more interested in changing this country into a banana republic with their American version of a "politburo" in charge.

If there's proof out there, it better be more than the word of a sleaze ball lawyer who's being threatened with criminal prosecution and imprisonment as a stick to make him "come clean". How can you trust anything he's liable to say in that situation? That is the kind of perversion of the justice system you'd expect to see in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia not the United States. Sadly, it seems like that's the only way the Special Counsel is trying to make his case about collusion.

I'm surprised that you appear to take every talking point from right wing media at face value, as you to have a habit of repeating it as argument.

You may think I do the same with progessive sources, but you would be wrong. When there is genuine debate or doubt, regardless of source I try to determine the accuracy of the information. When it is only opinion, I take it as just that - an opinion.

But here are some facts you may want to note: 1) only one side continually attacks the 4th estate institution as "enemy of the people" and "fake news", although the founding fathers wrote extensively about the critical nature of a free and unfettered press. 2) only one side has lied continually about contact with the Russians, discussions with the Russians, and meetings with the Russians. 3) only one side has worked in concert with the administration to shield the executive from meaningful oversight by the House and in so doing wreaked havoc on methods and sources of legitimate criminal and national security agencies.

[johnu]

Chas_P, on 2018-July-25, 19:15, said:

Horse hockey. Where I live...and probably where you live too...photo ID is required to buy Sudafed. And you're suggesting that people be allowed to vote without proving they're who they say they are but they have to prove who they are to buy Sudafed? You must be smoking Sudafed (or a derivative thereof).

And where Dennison lives, you need photo ID to buy groceries.

Dennison at rally makes false claim on photo IDs for groceries

Honestly, I think people should be required to have photo ID's to watch Jeopardy. There are too many people shouting out wrong answers under the cover of anonymity.

[johnu]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-31, 14:37, said:

"Lock her up" is the conservative equivalent of "Hands up, don't shoot!". It highlights the fact that there is a two tiered system of justice in this country one for the privileged and well connected individuals and a different one for everybody else. Conservatives just happen to believe this country's legal system should be about equal justice for all.

Actually, the conservative model of justice is three tiered.

1. Corporation
99. Rich people
9999. Everybody else

Even rich people will usually get buried by corporations in court, unless they own a competing corporation.

The last line I quoted from you shows that you either have a sense of humor, or no sense of humor.

[johnu]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-31, 14:37, said:

If there's proof out there, it better be more than the word of a sleaze ball lawyer who's being threatened with criminal prosecution and imprisonment as a stick to make him "come clean". How can you trust anything he's liable to say in that situation? That is the kind of perversion of the justice system you'd expect to see in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia not the United States. Sadly, it seems like that's the only way the Special Counsel is trying to make his case about collusion.

Nice try I'm going to award you a bronze star for participating in the discussion.

When you are going after criminal organizations, you aren't going to try to find society matrons to provide testimony against career criminals. You are going to try to find people who know the inner workings of the criminal enterprise. Surprisingly enough, the witnesses you find are not always squeaky clean. If you want to make a case, find some modern countries where this doesn't happen.

As far as Nazi Germany or Russia/USSR are concerned, you could have ended up on the wrong side of a concentration camp or gulag without a trial, or just permanently disappear. This was a strange appearance of Godwin's law.

[Winstonm]

Dennison is playing the Richard Dawson role from Running Man

[Elianna]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-31, 14:37, said:

"Lock her up" is the conservative equivalent of "Hands up, don't shoot!". It highlights the fact that there is a two tiered system of justice in this country one for the privileged and well connected individuals and a different one for everybody else.

So on one hand, there's a motto advocating putting a woman who has never been tried, let alone convicted of a crime, in jail, while on the other hand there's a motto advocating that people who haven't been tried nor convicted of a crime shouldn't be shot to death. And these are equivalent?

[Chas_P]

johnu, on 2018-August-01, 05:59, said:

Honestly, I think people should be required to have photo ID's to watch Jeopardy. There are too many people shouting out wrong answers under the cover of anonymity.

Cute response. Childish. But cute.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2018-July-25, 19:15, said:

Horse hockey. Where I live...and probably where you live too...photo ID is required to buy Sudafed. And you're suggesting that people be allowed to vote without proving they're who they say they are but they have to prove who they are to buy Sudafed? You must be smoking Sudafed (or a derivative thereof).

I had to look up Sudafed. Apparently it has legal uses and illegal uses, the latter having to do with methamphetamines, hence the regulations. In that regard it is something like arsenic. There are legal uses but I think there is some control over the sale because of the illegal use.
All in all, I don't think you picked a good example.
Sending your kid to school might be more relevant. A parent, including those who live in often cited chaotic trailer home environments, send their kids to school and they are expected to be able to show that they live within the school's boundaries. Perhaps the big difference here is that people seem to care more about sending their kids to school than they do about voting, so that fraud in the former is far more common than fraud in the latter.

I have no real problem with some reasonable precautions against voter fraud but I think the Russians are a far greater danger to the integrity of voting than busloads of people coming over borders.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2018-August-02, 08:54, said:

I had to look up Sudafed. Apparently it has legal uses and illegal uses, the latter having to do with methamphetamines, hence the regulations. In that regard it is something like arsenic. There are legal uses but I think there is some control over the sale because of the illegal use.
All in all, I don't think you picked a good example.
Sending your kid to school might be more relevant. A parent, including those who live in often cited chaotic trailer home environments, send their kids to school and they are expected to be able to show that they live within the school's boundaries. Perhaps the big difference here is that people seem to care more about sending their kids to school than they do about voting, so that fraud in the former is far more common than fraud in the latter.

I have no real problem with some reasonable precautions against voter fraud but I think the Russians are a far greater danger to the integrity of voting than busloads of people coming over borders.

But isn't there a significant difference? Russians, and probably 100s of other groups, try to influence voters. Busloads of people coming over the borders, some of them actually vote illegally, potentially changing the outcome of an election.

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2018-August-02, 11:13, said:

But isn't there a significant difference? Russians, and probably 100s of other groups, try to influence voters. Busloads of people coming over the borders, some of them actually vote illegally, potentially changing the outcome of an election.

I agree that there is a difference. As to Russian efforts, I am not certain, I doubt anyone is, of the extent. I think that there is good reason to be concerned. And, really, it is not just Russians. Exactly how we cope with robotic influence is not clear. I pay more attention than some, perhaps more attention than average. to political matters and I try keep a skeptical eye on what I am told, no matter from where. But I can be misled. I do think we have entered an era where the massiveness of mis-information, organized relentlessly by people who do not wish us well. Is a problem. In the old days, if I were to tell someone that Hillary Clinton was operating a child abuse ring out of the basement of a pizzeria, possibly some nut would believe me, most would write me off as just Ken being a nut. Today, this spreads, and becomes something that gets news coverage, debate, the whole works. It isn't that this was never a problem before, there was the commie plot of the 50s to floridate water, but the massiveness is new. You pull one weed and ten more spring up. It's a problem.
As to the busloads, as I said I don't object to some reasonable efforts. I seriously doubt it is a major problem. It's tough enough to get people to walk to the local elementary school and cast one ballot. Hopping on a bus along with hundreds of others, off to someplace to vote? And then would it work when they get there? I go to vote, they look up Ken Berg, see that Ken Berg has not voted, I vote. The guy from the bus would have to know that Ken Berg is registered, and that Ken Berg has not yet voted. If there really is a problem I favor dealing with it, and I am ok with some modest preventative majors, but I think the Russian problem, the general problem of organized mass dis-information, and the potential problem of technological meddling, is larger. Much larger.


Just a side story I have told before. In college in the 50s I was always scrambling for money, sometimes with just a short term job. I was hired to transport ballots from one point to another. I would drive to a place where the ballots were cast.They would give me some boxes. I would transport them to some other place to be counted. I wasn't even old enough to vote, 21 at that time. The people giving me the ballots had never seen me before. I never checked, but I doubt the boxes were sealed all that securely. It was a bit bizarre.
Anyway, I am fine with preventing voter fraud. I am not fine with making it difficult for qualified people to vote. Sometimes an effort might be attempting the former. Often I think it is attempting the latter. It might not always be easy to judge.

A question occurs to me. Suppose Bobby McGee thumbs a diesel down, just before it rains, and it takes them all the way to New Orleans. Now I think Bobby and Janis should be allowed to vote in the presidential race, but maybe not in a mayoral race, not in New Orleans nor in Baton Rouge, assuming they are just passing through both places. Does anyone know how this is handled?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-August-02, 11:13, said:

Busloads of people coming over the borders, some of them actually vote illegally, potentially changing the outcome of an election.

This is a urban myth of the unhinged right.

No one has ever been able to demonstrate that this is true.
Kris Kobach was assigned to do so.

The judge laughed him out of court and assigned him remedial work regarding standards for presenting evidence.

Quote

But isn't there a significant difference? Russians, and probably 100s of other groups, try to influence voters.

Not doubt. By the Trump campaign is alleged to have conspired with the Russians.
If true, this constitutes a felony.

And, of course, there's the money laundering. Lots and lots of money laundering.
Money laundering for the Russians. Money laundering for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Money laundering for drug cartels...

The Ezra Klein show had a great episode on this very topic just this morning
https://www.vox.com/...in-show-podcast

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-02, 12:50, said:

This is a urban myth of the unhinged right.

I believe there have been 2 or 3 cases of illegal voting by illegal immigrants in the courts the last couple of years. So, urban myth? I think not. Significant? We don't know. There have been precints where there have been more votes counted than voters registered, a couple in Chicago I have read about.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2018-August-02, 08:54, said:

All in all, I don't think you picked a good example.
Sending your kid to school might be more relevant. A parent, including those who live in often cited chaotic trailer home environments, send their kids to school and they are expected to be able to show that they live within the school's boundaries. Perhaps the big difference here is that people seem to care more about sending their kids to school than they do about voting, so that fraud in the former is far more common than fraud in the latter.

Maybe not a good example, but I think you see my point. To be allowed to vote you should be registered to vote and be able to prove you're who you say you are when you get to the polling place....not just walk in and say, "Gimme a ballot."

[Al_U_Card]

I have never "registered" for any vote, but have always voted in every election at every level of government. Here, in Canada, if you pay taxes, you are on the eligible voter lists. Never had to show ID, just had to show up and give my name and address. There are likely other ways to get on the lists (census is one for sure) but residency (having a home address) seems to be enough. (If you live here, you get a vote.) In the US, do you need to be affiliated with a political party?

[Winstonm]

Chas_P, on 2018-August-02, 14:57, said:

Maybe not a good example, but I think you see my point. To be allowed to vote you should be registered to vote and be able to prove you're who you say you are when you get to the polling place....not just walk in and say, "Gimme a ballot."

This would likely help.

From here: https://www.brennanc...er-registration

Quote

Automatic voter registration (AVR) is an innovative policy that streamlines the way Americans register to vote. AVR makes two simple, yet transformative, changes to the way our country has traditionally registered voters. First, AVR makes voter registration “opt-out” instead of “opt-in”—eligible citizens who interact with government agencies are registered to vote or have their existing registration information updated, unless they affirmatively decline. Again, the voter can opt-out; it is not compulsory registration. Second, those agencies transfer voter registration information electronically to election officials instead of using paper registration forms. These common-sense reforms increase registration rates, clean up the voter rolls, and save states money.

AVR is gaining momentum across the country. Currently twelve states and D.C. have approved the policy

Although you may not approve as it actually increases legal registrations instead of restricting voters.

[Winstonm]

If nothing else, this is an interesting take on the issue of kompromat the Russians have over Dennison. An issue addressed is a Lawfare post and the dots that Lawfare failed to connect in the post.

Quote

While there is evidence—most notably with respect to the Trump Tower meeting—of Trump campaign willingness to work with the Russians, there’s not a lot of evidence that any kind of deal was ever struck.

To sustain their case that “there’s not a lot of evidence that any kind of deal was ever struck,” they neglect a number of other points. They don’t mention, for example, that a week after the Trump Tower meeting, the Russians released the first of the stolen files. They don’t mention that (contrary to Don Jr’s massaged testimony and most public claims since) there was a significant effort in November 2016 to follow-up on that June 9 meeting. They don’t mention that that effort was stalled because of the difficulty of communicating given the scrutiny of being President-elect. They don’t mention that the same day the Agalarov people discussed the difficulty of communicating with the President-elect, Jared Kushner met the Russian Ambassador in Don Jr’s office (not in transition space) and raised the possibility of a back channel, a meeting which led to Jared’s meeting with the head of a sanctioned bank, which in turn led to a back channel meeting in the Seychelles with more sanctioned financiers. And inexplicably, they make no mention of the December 29, 2016 calls, during which — almost certainly on direct orders from Trump relayed by KT McFarland — Mike Flynn got the Russians to stall any response to Obama’s sanctions, a discussion Mike Flynn would later lie about to the FBI, in spite of the fact that at least six transition officials knew what he really said.