The Libertarian in me argues that some people are able to drive at higher speeds much more safely than others. In my daily commute everyday I see people who shouldn't be allowed to drive at any time at any speed. Speed limits are arbitrary. A few years ago I witnessed an old dude driving 10 mph below the speed limit and swerving into the curb every 50 feet. I also saw an old lady in the Michigan Sec State office fail the damned test four times and was allowed to keep taking the test until she passed. This despite the fact that she couldn't even hear the f'ing lady who was giving her the test!
I have some sympathy with this, but who would make these judgments? Studies consistently show that most people over-estimate how safe a driver they are, so presumably there would have to be an independent process. That would need to be done very regularly and, even so, would be liable to flaws (for instance as a result of tiredness or illness of a driver). It doesn't seem like an efficient system to me (nor suited to libertarian ideas).
There's also the problem that the behavior of drivers affects others on the road. One driver may be perfectly capable of avoiding being in an accident himself while passing others at 140 mph, but still make accidents more likely as a result of surprising or scaring people being passed.
I agree. That's where the judgement of a police officer would be welcomed. An impartial bullshit camera will not make any allowances for low traffic or any other circumstance. That's what I don't like...
Are you a British citizen? I only ask because the population density is much higher in Europe and may be a valid reason for your views. In the US, if you're not in the East or West coast areas, speed limits are arbitrary at best. In Michigan they even got rid of the requirement for motorcyclists to wear helmets. It's still suicidal to not wear them on the freeways or in Detroit in my opinion but on the rural highways in the boondocks it's probably relatively safe (and would be much more fun - if I was inclined to drive a motorcycle anyway).
I'm British, yes. I agree that traffic density is important and that if traffic is light the chances of accidents are much lower. The German Autobahns (motorways) used not to have speed limits at all, but there are now limits on much of them in an effort to reduce accidents. However, there still remain sections with no limits and these tend to be those in rural areas where traffic is lighter and accidents rare.
Personally I wouldn't argue with not wearing helmets as they are just designed for individual protection and I think it's reasonable to leave that up to the individual. The only impact on society there is the potential higher cost of medical treatment, but that could be dealt with by having a higher license cost. I don't myself wear a seat belt when driving and I would prefer it if that wasn't against the law as well ...
I really don't see why facing your accuser is relevant to this offence. Speeding is a crime of strict liability, i.e. it doesn't matter whether you intended to do it or not. From that point of view I don't see any difference whether the speed camera was in a box or the hand of a police officer.
I presume that your question comes from the perspective of taking the surrounding conditions into account, i.e. things like the time of day and traffic conditions. If you have a police officer accusing you in court you therefore have the opportunity to quiz him about those conditions. However, a camera is also capturing that sort of data and evidence from that could be used in court if that is important to you.
Human beings are capable of making judgement calls. Even cops (believe it or not). Cameras are not. I've never argued with an actual police officer when I've been pulled over because I knew that they thought it was justified. A camera has no thought process whatsoever. It's like getting a ticket from Keldorn or Officer Tackleberry...
Reports tonight (time for a time-warp) are that Trump is getting set to pardon....Scooter Libby, the man who during the Bush Administration was at the heart of the scandal dealing with the retaliatory outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame because her husband wrote an op-ed totally discrediting the Administration claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking enriched uranium from Niger. I see only two reasons for this: one would be that John Bolton is getting in his ear about this. The other is that, like with Joe Arpaio, he is testing the waters of how is pardon power is received. Something very strange is going on with this. But it is worth noting that Libby was found guilty by a jury of something we hear ALOT about in the Trump era, which is lying to the FBI. This is a might be a more ominous development than it seems. But it also serves to tie Trump at the hip with the disaster of the George W. Bush Presidency and the Iraq War (especially when taken in conjunction with the appointment of Bolton), which is ANOTHER thing he explicitly ran against in the Republican primary. We are off the rails now.
Now there is a blast from the past. I concur--this is nothing more than testing the waters of pardons. If he pardons Libby and nothing negative occurs because of it (of course, nothing negative will occur because the only person who cares about Scooter these days are his immediate family members) then he will start handing them out as if they were free cookies...which is something I have been expecting from him for nearly a year now.
Edit: the only thing weirder to me would be if @Mathsorcerer said he thinks it's totally justified since I'm clearly a lawbreaker!
Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Every crime must be punished!
Seriously, though, speed cameras and red light cameras are operated by corporations who may not be licensed as a private investigator (or private investigation firm) in various States, which means they do not have the legal authority to take pictures of your license plate, run the plates to find your id (even though I, as a private citizen, could write down your license plate then backtrack your home address for a modest fee--hooray for the Internet...not), then send you a ticket on behalf of the local police department.
I would be careful ignoring the ticket, so definitely read all the fine print like that article @Zaghoul mentioned. In some cases that might work, but I know I wouldn't want a knock on the door some Saturday afternoon from a police officer serving a warrant.
The Libertarian in me argues that some people are able to drive at higher speeds much more safely than others. In my daily commute everyday I see people who shouldn't be allowed to drive at any time at any speed. Speed limits are arbitrary. A few years ago I witnessed an old dude driving 10 mph below the speed limit and swerving into the curb every 50 feet. I also saw an old lady in the Michigan Sec State office fail the damned test four times and was allowed to keep taking the test until she passed. This despite the fact that she couldn't even hear the f'ing lady who was giving her the test!
I have some sympathy with this, but who would make these judgments? Studies consistently show that most people over-estimate how safe a driver they are, so presumably there would have to be an independent process. That would need to be done very regularly and, even so, would be liable to flaws (for instance as a result of tiredness or illness of a driver). It doesn't seem like an efficient system to me (nor suited to libertarian ideas).
There's also the problem that the behavior of drivers affects others on the road. One driver may be perfectly capable of avoiding being in an accident himself while passing others at 140 mph, but still make accidents more likely as a result of surprising or scaring people being passed.
I agree. That's where the judgement of a police officer would be welcomed. An impartial bullshit camera will not make any allowances for low traffic or any other circumstance. That's what I don't like...
Frankly, in my personal experience, the most dangerous situations and close calls I have seen on highways and interstates have resulted from people driving far too SLOW. The speed limit in my home state is 70 mph on the interstate. The minimum is 40, which is absurd. A person going that slow completely disrupts the normal flow of traffic. And I am a person who, at most, will drive 71 or 72 mph on those roads, not some speed demon.
The Libertarian in me argues that some people are able to drive at higher speeds much more safely than others. In my daily commute everyday I see people who shouldn't be allowed to drive at any time at any speed. Speed limits are arbitrary. A few years ago I witnessed an old dude driving 10 mph below the speed limit and swerving into the curb every 50 feet. I also saw an old lady in the Michigan Sec State office fail the damned test four times and was allowed to keep taking the test until she passed. This despite the fact that she couldn't even hear the f'ing lady who was giving her the test!
I have some sympathy with this, but who would make these judgments? Studies consistently show that most people over-estimate how safe a driver they are, so presumably there would have to be an independent process. That would need to be done very regularly and, even so, would be liable to flaws (for instance as a result of tiredness or illness of a driver). It doesn't seem like an efficient system to me (nor suited to libertarian ideas).
There's also the problem that the behavior of drivers affects others on the road. One driver may be perfectly capable of avoiding being in an accident himself while passing others at 140 mph, but still make accidents more likely as a result of surprising or scaring people being passed.
I agree. That's where the judgement of a police officer would be welcomed. An impartial bullshit camera will not make any allowances for low traffic or any other circumstance. That's what I don't like...
Frankly, in my personal experience, the most dangerous situations and close calls I have seen on highways and interstates have resulted from people driving far too SLOW. The speed limit in my home state is 70 mph on the interstate. The minimum is 40, which is absurd. A person going that slow completely disrupts the normal flow of traffic. And I am a person who, at most, will drive 71 or 72 mph on those roads, not some speed demon.
Sedans aren’t the only vehicles that use roads. I wouldn’t want a semi trailer truck driving at a 100 clicks (roughly 65 mph) on any road, for any reason.
Sedans aren’t the only vehicles that use roads. I wouldn’t want a semi trailer truck driving at a 100 clicks (roughly 65 mph) on any road, for any reason.
Agreed, unless they're on the freeway in the left lane...
Sedans aren’t the only vehicles that use roads. I wouldn’t want a semi trailer truck driving at a 100 clicks (roughly 65 mph) on any road, for any reason.
Semis driving 65 or even 70 mph legally is the order of the day on US interstates. Is it not so in Canada??
James Comey's new book has come out, and naturally most people are interested in the parts which focus on Trump. I've not read the book; only a review, and one thing sticks out to me.
It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don't know.
This would indicate that the reason Comey made public the renewed investigation into Clinton because if she was elected without that information available to the public, one could argue that she only won because the investigation was kept quiet, and that she was therefore illegitimate. Comey made it public not to damage her chances of winning, but to avoid damaging her legitimacy after she won.
I still don't know why he kept quiet the investigation into Trump that began a few months before then, but this would explain it, at least in part: since he assumed Trump would not win, he saw no need to make public the investigation, because he did not think there would be a Trump victory that could be deemed illegitimate.
They can, most don’t depending on what they’re hauling and the conditions.
My sister and I were stuck behind two of them going 60 km/h (which is less than 40 mph) as they hauled prebuilt houses north. 70 (about 45 mph) is usually the minimum limit, but the wind kept swaying the houses, they had to go slower to prevent disaster. Scariest car ride of my life.
100 is the speed limit here in Ontario. Most go 80-90 (50-55 mph) from what I can tell.
My judgement right now may also be slightly impaired dues to the Humboldt tragedy recently. Just looking at the pictures from the accident, you know speed was a factor.
In other news, the leaders of Backpage.com are being charged with various crimes from conspiracy to money laundering. Backpage.com has long been notorious for facilitating human trafficking, allowing black market sex rings to operate in public, in disguise, and advertise their services far more effectively than they otherwise could. A lot of independent prostitutes advertised on Backpage.com, but more importantly, a lot of sex slaves and children were advertised on Backpage by their pimps, who used the site to reach new customers and expand their enterprise. The owners of the site were well aware of this--this has been common knowledge for years--and also allegedly tried to hide evidence of the crimes from federal investigators.
This will deal a massive blow to human trafficking by taking the most profitable advertising outlet away from the pimps of child prostitutes.
- Wait, China is against TPP?! - Yes, Mr. President. - No one knew that! - If you say so, Mr. President. - But that little Chinese guy I golfed with said he liked TPP! - Shinzo Abe is the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. President. - Yeah, Shinzo! Great little Chinese guy. You know, golfing is a skill, it's a skill, like, some guys can just sink a putt, bing bing bong, but other-- - Mr. President, Prime Minister Abe is not Chinese. Japan is not part of China. - No one had any idea!
Nate Silver and the folks at 538 have provided pretty compelling statistical analysis based on what the polling did in the last week of the campaign that there is a STRONG case to be made that the Comey announcement absolutely cost her the election. Which makes the idea Trump thinks Comey was unfair to HIM all the more absurd. There is a more than likely chance he wouldn't even be in office if Comey hadn't have made that decision.
Other than that, the big takeaway from the excerpts is what Comey says Trump's reaction to being told about the Russian interference was. He showed ZERO interest in what to do about it or how to stop it in the future. He was only concerned about how to spin it from a public relations perspective. It is yet more evidence that Trump, AT A MINIMUM, is perfectly fine with leaving the United States Election system open to flat-out attack in the future if it benefits him personally, which I view as just straight-out traitorous behavior from a President.
Libby has officially been pardoned. Again, there are only two reasons this could be happening, and I believe it is a combination of both. #1 is that John Bolton just entered the White House as National Security Adviser last week. He almost certainly put this idea in the President's ear. #2 is that Libby was the focus of the LAST major Special Prosecutor in American politics, which was Patrick Fitzgerald, and he was convicted of lying to the FBI to impede an investigation. There is no way this wasn't a way to get a message to potential Mueller witnesses. Nothing else passes the smell test. You are watching how this President intends to obstruct justice in real-time.
And let's not even get into the fact that this is tied to one of the most shameful acts of the Bush Presidency, the outing a CIA Operative as retaliation against what her husband wrote in an Op-Ed. Make no mistake about what Scooter Libby was, which was the guy who took the bullet for what Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Richard Armitage clearly orchestrated to push back against someone who exposed their lies about the justificaiton for the Iraq War (in this particular case, I don't even think that George W. Bush was in the loop, though he also shamefully commuted Libby's actual sentence the moment his appeals were exhausted). This act makes Trump's distancing himself from this aspect of the Bush Administration a complete and utter farce.
In other news, the leaders of Backpage.com are being charged with various crimes from conspiracy to money laundering. Backpage.com has long been notorious for facilitating human trafficking, allowing black market sex rings to operate in public, in disguise, and advertise their services far more effectively than they otherwise could. A lot of independent prostitutes advertised on Backpage.com, but more importantly, a lot of sex slaves and children were advertised on Backpage by their pimps, who used the site to reach new customers and expand their enterprise. The owners of the site were well aware of this--this has been common knowledge for years--and also allegedly tried to hide evidence of the crimes from federal investigators.
This will deal a massive blow to human trafficking by taking the most profitable advertising outlet away from the pimps of child prostitutes.
I may have mentioned this earlier, but I volunteer to teach hospitality workers about the signs of human trafficking. One of the things we mentioned was that hotel managers (particularly in the Foxwoods Resort Casino area) should have someone check websites like backpage.com to look for pictures or mentions of their establishment (usually coded) in advertisements. In a rare episode of corporate altruism, the owner of one hotel actually responded by making fake accounts to make sure that any bad-actors could be identified.
In other news, the leaders of Backpage.com are being charged with various crimes from conspiracy to money laundering. Backpage.com has long been notorious for facilitating human trafficking, allowing black market sex rings to operate in public, in disguise, and advertise their services far more effectively than they otherwise could. A lot of independent prostitutes advertised on Backpage.com, but more importantly, a lot of sex slaves and children were advertised on Backpage by their pimps, who used the site to reach new customers and expand their enterprise. The owners of the site were well aware of this--this has been common knowledge for years--and also allegedly tried to hide evidence of the crimes from federal investigators.
This will deal a massive blow to human trafficking by taking the most profitable advertising outlet away from the pimps of child prostitutes.
The sad fact is that alternate websites are already operating, picking up the slack from this one being shut down. (no, I don't know what they are and even if I did I wouldn't tell you)
*************
Clarification on the investigation into Michael Cohen--apparently it had nothing to do with him as a practicing attorney but with his business dealings, independent of anything Trump-related. Still...I am certain he thought it was too close for comfort.
Clarification on the investigation into Michael Cohen--apparently it had nothing to do with him as a practicing attorney but with his business dealings, independent of anything Trump-related. Still...I am certain he thought it was too close for comfort.
It does still sound like there is some kind of Trump connection. There are various reports that some of things that the FBI was looking for relate to the payment to Stormy Daniels, the Access Hollywood tapes, etc, etc
I am starting to think this is all to build a case against Cohen (which makes sense, then, why Mueller wasnt specifically involved) - but it does seem like some of it crosses paths with Trump.
Whatever it was, the Washington Post is reporting that part of what were seized were audio recordings, and Cohen is absolutely under criminal investigation at this point. If Trump has nothing to worry about, he certainly has a strange way of showing it, since he seems to be more unhinged than usual the last few days (which is really saying something) and apparently Rod Rosenstein has told confidantes that he is "prepared to be fired" at any time which is.....ominous, to say the least. This whole situation has the feeling of something that is rapidly spiraling out of his control. At what point does he ask himself how many different fronts he can fight a war on, and just make the moves we know he wants to??
If this story from McClatchy pans out, it's big, big news. And would indicate that Mueller knows far, far more than the general public could possibly even be aware of. Cohen VIGOROUSLY denied this trip ever took place, going so far as to basically shout it from the mountaintops. So why lie about it?? Going to Prague is not illegal, unless...........
Again, this would be yet another part of the much-maligned dossier proved entirely accurate. As I said in the previous post, the ship is now start to take on water faster than it can be bailed out. Also, it hardly even seems worth mentioning at this point, but these people (and by these people I mean those orbiting around Trump) seem to lie about EVERYTHING. Not some things, or even the majority of things. Nearly 100% of what comes out of their mouth is some sort of deception or flat-out lie. It does indeed seem that the Stormy Daniels affair has opened up the floodgates on the one person who Trump could not afford to be looked into, which is his consigliere Michael Cohen. It's time to start asking the question which many have dismissed out of hand for the last 16 months: what if it really IS this bad?? When he previously denied this trip, Cohen supposedly used his passport as proof. We now know Manafort had multiple passports. Is it even remotely far-fetched to think Cohen may as well?? Is there any explanation as to why the Campaign Manager or personal lawyer of a then Presidential candidate would be walking around with multiple passports??
If this story from McClatchy pans out, it's big, big news. And would indicate that Mueller knows far, far more than the general public could possibly even be aware of. Cohen VIGOROUSLY denied this trip ever took place, going so far as to basically shout it from the mountaintops. So why lie about it?? Going to Prague is not illegal, unless...........
Again, this would be yet another part of the much-maligned dossier proved entirely accurate. As I said in the previous post, the ship is now start to take on water faster than it can be bailed out. Also, it hardly even seems worth mentioning at this point, but these people (and by these people I mean those orbiting around Trump) seem to lie about EVERYTHING. Not some things, or even the majority of things. Nearly 100% of what comes out of their mouth is some sort of deception or flat-out lie. It does indeed seem that the Stormy Daniels affair has opened up the floodgates on the one person who Trump could not afford to be looked into, which is his consigliere Michael Cohen. It's time to start asking the question which many have dismissed out of hand for the last 16 months: what if it really IS this bad?? When he previously denied this trip, Cohen supposedly used his passport as proof. We now know Manafort had multiple passports. Is it even remotely far-fetched to think Cohen may as well?? Is there any explanation as to why the Campaign Manager or personal lawyer of a then Presidential candidate would be walking around with multiple passports??
I was just coming here to repost this link myself. If true - it absolutely ties the Cohen investigation to the Russia probe regarding Trump. I dont know if it's remotely feasible to actually flip Cohen (a la Flynn/Gates) - but it'll be a hell of a brick in the foundation of this investigation.
I honestly dont know where this goes next. If Rosenstein is fired, I'm not sure what that looks like. Hopefully there's a contingency plan here.
Side note - Does anyone else find it completely ridiculous that part of the line to assault on Rosenstein is that he has conflicts of interest regarding having written(or was it signed?) the letter advocating firing Comey? I only say because it's obviously nothing but a GIGANTIC conflict of interest that Trump is able to fire/remove/restrict the staff that are actively investigating him. I get that he's the president (and therefore, the head of the executive branch) - but that doesnt mean it isnt still a conflict of interest. Just another logical incongruity...
The evidence that's mentioned would only show that he entered the Czech Republic. I wonder if Cohen's vociferous denials depended on a technicality, like he actually met Kosachev at a Russian compound in the suburbs or something.
The evidence that's mentioned would only show that he entered the Czech Republic. I wonder if Cohen's vociferous denials depended on a technicality, like he actually met Kosachev at a Russian compound in the suburbs or something.
...nah. It was probably just a bald-faced lie.
I think the crux of the issue is there is no reason to lie about being in Prague unless you didn't want anyone to know what you were doing there.
It also appears that Trump is going to start bombing Syria at any moment. Something is happening tonight, and it's impossible to divorce from the firestorm he is facing domestically. I would not be surprised if we now see a massive bombing campaign that he will use as cover to fire Rosenstein while it is taking place. Trump is getting ready to use the military as his personal shield. We have heard about "Wag the Dog" before, but this seems to be the one time where it may be truly taking place. Trump is about to play his war card. Get ready for the greatest hits of the Iraq-era, which include calling liberals traitors if they don't support the President and equating questioning of his decisions to being against the troops. I've seen this movie before. Reporting seems to indicate that Mattis has advised against strikes in Syria but Trump may be pushing ahead regardless.
Absolutely. I was just wondering whether we'll have to listen to a year of Fox News saying "OK fine, they have video and audio of Cohen handing a briefcase of cash to Kosachev in exchange for all the crimes. But Cohen never technically crossed the Prague city limits, so fake news! Why are liberals such liars?"
By the way, when Trump and Mattis are telling you how much he cares about the people of Syria, here is how many refugees we've actually admitted into this country from Syria when it came time to put up or shut-up:
2016: 15,749 2017: 3024 2018: 11
That's right. The first year of Trump's Administration we admitted exactly 1/5th as many Syrian refugees as the previous year under Barack Obama, and now we have essentially stopped taking them AT ALL.
Barack Obama also went to Congress (as these things are SUPPOSED to work) to get authorization to escalate in Syria. I believe he did so twice. He was denied that authorization. Those same Republicans now have no problem with Trump just making the move with no Congressional consultation whatsoever, in the midst of what can only be described as a total domestic political crisis:
Barack Obama also went to Congress (as these things are SUPPOSED to work) to get authorization to escalate in Syria. I believe he did so twice. He was denied that authorization
Trump is about to play his war card. Get ready for the greatest hits of the Iraq-era, which include calling liberals traitors if they don't support the President and equating questioning of his decisions to being against the troops. I've seen this movie before. Reporting seems to indicate that Mattis has advised against strikes in Syria but Trump may be pushing ahead regardless.
Strikes have taken place near Damascus on targets said to be linked to chemical weapons. Campaign is badged as a joint one with UK and France.
Given how controversial the Iraq campaign still is in the UK, Theresa May seems to me to be taking a huge risk here. Recently Jeremy Corbyn has been on the back foot in arguing that we need more evidence of Russian involvement in the Skripal poisoning before taking action against Russia. He's been taking a similar line on the situation in Syria and arguing that any proposed action should be authorized by Parliament rather than initiated directly by the government. If the public perception becomes that May is doing Trump's dirty work as a cover for his domestic troubles then Corbyn will be vindicated and the May government could easily fall.
If this story from McClatchy pans out, it's big, big news. And would indicate that Mueller knows far, far more than the general public could possibly even be aware of. Cohen VIGOROUSLY denied this trip ever took place, going so far as to basically shout it from the mountaintops. So why lie about it?? Going to Prague is not illegal, unless...........
The story is still a little too thin. "Unnamed sources" and "spoke on the condition of anonymity" might as well be heresay or guesswork--if the proof exists then put it out there for everyone to see and for Cohen to rebut. What evidence do they have? Credit card receipt? (surely he couldn't be that dumb) Signed a hotel register under his own name? (again, he can't be that dumb) Got his picture taken from a street or security camera? (it can be difficult to avoid all of those) If the evidence definitely puts him in Prague at that time then go ahead and make the case for linking him to Russians, otherwise they should just admit that they can't prove anything.
It sounds like I am defending him...but I am not. If they can prove it then I definitely want them to prove it. Right now, though, I don't see proof, only hypothesis.
Comments
Personally I wouldn't argue with not wearing helmets as they are just designed for individual protection and I think it's reasonable to leave that up to the individual. The only impact on society there is the potential higher cost of medical treatment, but that could be dealt with by having a higher license cost. I don't myself wear a seat belt when driving and I would prefer it if that wasn't against the law as well ...
Seriously, though, speed cameras and red light cameras are operated by corporations who may not be licensed as a private investigator (or private investigation firm) in various States, which means they do not have the legal authority to take pictures of your license plate, run the plates to find your id (even though I, as a private citizen, could write down your license plate then backtrack your home address for a modest fee--hooray for the Internet...not), then send you a ticket on behalf of the local police department.
I would be careful ignoring the ticket, so definitely read all the fine print like that article @Zaghoul mentioned. In some cases that might work, but I know I wouldn't want a knock on the door some Saturday afternoon from a police officer serving a warrant.
I still don't know why he kept quiet the investigation into Trump that began a few months before then, but this would explain it, at least in part: since he assumed Trump would not win, he saw no need to make public the investigation, because he did not think there would be a Trump victory that could be deemed illegitimate.
My sister and I were stuck behind two of them going 60 km/h (which is less than 40 mph) as they hauled prebuilt houses north. 70 (about 45 mph) is usually the minimum limit, but the wind kept swaying the houses, they had to go slower to prevent disaster. Scariest car ride of my life.
100 is the speed limit here in Ontario. Most go 80-90 (50-55 mph) from what I can tell.
My judgement right now may also be slightly impaired dues to the Humboldt tragedy recently. Just looking at the pictures from the accident, you know speed was a factor.
This will deal a massive blow to human trafficking by taking the most profitable advertising outlet away from the pimps of child prostitutes.
Also, the Welsh are not "Mics". Who knew?!
Other than that, the big takeaway from the excerpts is what Comey says Trump's reaction to being told about the Russian interference was. He showed ZERO interest in what to do about it or how to stop it in the future. He was only concerned about how to spin it from a public relations perspective. It is yet more evidence that Trump, AT A MINIMUM, is perfectly fine with leaving the United States Election system open to flat-out attack in the future if it benefits him personally, which I view as just straight-out traitorous behavior from a President.
And let's not even get into the fact that this is tied to one of the most shameful acts of the Bush Presidency, the outing a CIA Operative as retaliation against what her husband wrote in an Op-Ed. Make no mistake about what Scooter Libby was, which was the guy who took the bullet for what Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Richard Armitage clearly orchestrated to push back against someone who exposed their lies about the justificaiton for the Iraq War (in this particular case, I don't even think that George W. Bush was in the loop, though he also shamefully commuted Libby's actual sentence the moment his appeals were exhausted). This act makes Trump's distancing himself from this aspect of the Bush Administration a complete and utter farce.
*************
Clarification on the investigation into Michael Cohen--apparently it had nothing to do with him as a practicing attorney but with his business dealings, independent of anything Trump-related. Still...I am certain he thought it was too close for comfort.
It does still sound like there is some kind of Trump connection. There are various reports that some of things that the FBI was looking for relate to the payment to Stormy Daniels, the Access Hollywood tapes, etc, etc
I am starting to think this is all to build a case against Cohen (which makes sense, then, why Mueller wasnt specifically involved) - but it does seem like some of it crosses paths with Trump.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html
Again, this would be yet another part of the much-maligned dossier proved entirely accurate. As I said in the previous post, the ship is now start to take on water faster than it can be bailed out. Also, it hardly even seems worth mentioning at this point, but these people (and by these people I mean those orbiting around Trump) seem to lie about EVERYTHING. Not some things, or even the majority of things. Nearly 100% of what comes out of their mouth is some sort of deception or flat-out lie. It does indeed seem that the Stormy Daniels affair has opened up the floodgates on the one person who Trump could not afford to be looked into, which is his consigliere Michael Cohen. It's time to start asking the question which many have dismissed out of hand for the last 16 months: what if it really IS this bad?? When he previously denied this trip, Cohen supposedly used his passport as proof. We now know Manafort had multiple passports. Is it even remotely far-fetched to think Cohen may as well?? Is there any explanation as to why the Campaign Manager or personal lawyer of a then Presidential candidate would be walking around with multiple passports??
I was just coming here to repost this link myself. If true - it absolutely ties the Cohen investigation to the Russia probe regarding Trump. I dont know if it's remotely feasible to actually flip Cohen (a la Flynn/Gates) - but it'll be a hell of a brick in the foundation of this investigation.
I honestly dont know where this goes next. If Rosenstein is fired, I'm not sure what that looks like. Hopefully there's a contingency plan here.
Side note - Does anyone else find it completely ridiculous that part of the line to assault on Rosenstein is that he has conflicts of interest regarding having written(or was it signed?) the letter advocating firing Comey? I only say because it's obviously nothing but a GIGANTIC conflict of interest that Trump is able to fire/remove/restrict the staff that are actively investigating him. I get that he's the president (and therefore, the head of the executive branch) - but that doesnt mean it isnt still a conflict of interest. Just another logical incongruity...
...nah. It was probably just a bald-faced lie.
It also appears that Trump is going to start bombing Syria at any moment. Something is happening tonight, and it's impossible to divorce from the firestorm he is facing domestically. I would not be surprised if we now see a massive bombing campaign that he will use as cover to fire Rosenstein while it is taking place. Trump is getting ready to use the military as his personal shield. We have heard about "Wag the Dog" before, but this seems to be the one time where it may be truly taking place. Trump is about to play his war card. Get ready for the greatest hits of the Iraq-era, which include calling liberals traitors if they don't support the President and equating questioning of his decisions to being against the troops. I've seen this movie before. Reporting seems to indicate that Mattis has advised against strikes in Syria but Trump may be pushing ahead regardless.
2016: 15,749
2017: 3024
2018: 11
That's right. The first year of Trump's Administration we admitted exactly 1/5th as many Syrian refugees as the previous year under Barack Obama, and now we have essentially stopped taking them AT ALL.
Barack Obama also went to Congress (as these things are SUPPOSED to work) to get authorization to escalate in Syria. I believe he did so twice. He was denied that authorization. Those same Republicans now have no problem with Trump just making the move with no Congressional consultation whatsoever, in the midst of what can only be described as a total domestic political crisis:
He didn't even bother asking with Libya
Given how controversial the Iraq campaign still is in the UK, Theresa May seems to me to be taking a huge risk here. Recently Jeremy Corbyn has been on the back foot in arguing that we need more evidence of Russian involvement in the Skripal poisoning before taking action against Russia. He's been taking a similar line on the situation in Syria and arguing that any proposed action should be authorized by Parliament rather than initiated directly by the government. If the public perception becomes that May is doing Trump's dirty work as a cover for his domestic troubles then Corbyn will be vindicated and the May government could easily fall.
This ish Dumb. Syria kills Syrians with chemical weapons, so we kill more syrians.
All this to distract from Trump's awfulness and investigations into his people's crimes.
It sounds like I am defending him...but I am not. If they can prove it then I definitely want them to prove it. Right now, though, I don't see proof, only hypothesis.