Page 50 of 50 FirstFirst ... 40484950
Results 1,471 to 1,482 of 1482

Thread: Comrade Trump

  1. #1471
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    27,916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    lol. I really dont think so. I don't try cases in such rarefied air as the guys we are talking about, but for us regular down-in-the-mud types that is really not that unusual and certainly is not way out of line, at least not on the transcript. Maybe you heard audio or have video, which could make a difference, I guess. But if you have a cranky judge, and by all accounts I have seen this guy is one, that sort of stuff happens all the time.
    A judge basically calling a prosecutor a cry-baby seems over the line to me.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  2. #1472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    A judge basically calling a prosecutor a cry-baby seems over the line to me.
    totally commonplace in those rough and tumble blue collar courts creek punches his time card at
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  3. #1473
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    totally commonplace in those rough and tumble blue collar courts creek punches his time card at
    Exactly. And, tbh, if his little feelings were hurt and he was tearing up, then he deserved it.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  4. #1474
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    A judge basically calling a prosecutor a cry-baby seems over the line to me.
    I am surprised you find that going too far, given what I have experienced in Vegas courts, which are full of wacky judges, IMO. I had one trial in front of a stocky woman judge whose name I can't recall and she was all over the place. At some point during the trial I think she threatened every attorney (and one client), at least once, with either jail or physical harm or both. OTOH, I also had a 6 month trial in Vegas that was in front of a judge who was obsequious and pleasant all the time, although her rulings were very one-sided.

    "Over the line" isn't a judge being snarky outside the presence of the jury (if the judge said this in front of the jury it would absolutely be improper). That sort of snarkiness is just not uncommon with a cranky judge. The line is more easily crossed, in my mind, when the judge acts arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to evidentiary or other procedures. Once, when I was doing public defender work, a judge cut me off from cross-examining a cop on things he did not note in his police report which, as I am sure all the lawyers here know, is a very common c-x tactic. It was totally improper but a very difficult appellate issue and, for a misdemeanor case, not something that would ever be likely to get serious review. Now that, to me, was way over the line. (it was resolved when the entire public defenders office informed the court administrator at lunch they would immediately and permanently adopt a department policy to paper that judge unless he reversed his position, which he did within an hour.)

    Also, my crack about rarefied air was not snark nor inaccurate. Cases like Manafort's, which are heavily scrutinized in the media and where there are teams of lawyers on both sides, are extremely different from the sort of case I typically try. They are handled very differently by judges, I believe, because they know their every step will be immediately reviewed by the press.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  5. #1475
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    18,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    What office does she hold now or is she running for? I keep forgetting.

    But if you haven't found that dirt yet maybe there wasn't any and the Russians were just running a scam.
    So let me get this straight... the dems are all upset because the Drumpf campaign got scammed by the Russians? How much did they lose on this Russian dirt-on-hillary scam exactly? Was it as much as the dems lost on the BS Steele dossier that was created by an unsuitable source?
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  6. #1476

    Default

    Devin Nunes (aka Uncle Ted's House of Representatives spirit animal) was caught on tape talking about the need to protect Trump from Mueller. He's one of the main reasons the House Intelligence investigation turned into some counter investigation into the FBI, and failed to call a lot of important witnesses etc.


    GOP Rep. Devin Nunes was secretly recorded telling supporters that the Republicans have to keep control of the House to protect President Trump in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, according to a report.

    “If [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions won’t unrecuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones,” Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said at a private fundraiser July 30, NBC News reported Wednesday.

    “Which is really the danger. … I mean we have to keep all these seats,” he continued. “We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away.”

    Nunes was recorded while speaking at a closed-door event for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Calif.) in Spokane, Wash.

    It was released by the progressive group Fuse Washington and aired on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

    Nunes’ spokesman called the congressman’s comments “sensible ideas,” The Hill reported.

    The California Republican, a Trump ally who worked on his transition team, has been highly critical of the FBI investigation into the president and claims it was launched by biased agents out to get Trump.

    During the fundraiser, Nunes also said conservative Republicans decided to table the idea of impeaching Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who’s overseeing the Mueller probe, because it could endanger the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    Nunes said, “It’s a bit complicated” because “we only have so many months left, right?”

    “So if we actually vote to impeach, okay, what that does is that triggers the Senate then has to take it up,” Nunes told the supporters. “Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice, the new Supreme Court justice?”

    He went on to say he supports Rosenstein’s impeachment, but “the question is the timing of it right before the election.”

    Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), members of the House Freedom Caucus, introduced a resolution last month to impeach Rosenstein.


    https://nypost.com/2018/08/09/nunes-...rce=reddit.com
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  7. #1477

    Default

    I don't know what Trump is so worried about. His base is all he cares about and they won't give a flying flip over anything the Mueller probe publishes, no matter how bad it is.

  8. #1478
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    27,916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I am surprised you find that going too far, given what I have experienced in Vegas courts, which are full of wacky judges, IMO. I had one trial in front of a stocky woman judge whose name I can't recall and she was all over the place. At some point during the trial I think she threatened every attorney (and one client), at least once, with either jail or physical harm or both. OTOH, I also had a 6 month trial in Vegas that was in front of a judge who was obsequious and pleasant all the time, although her rulings were very one-sided.

    "Over the line" isn't a judge being snarky outside the presence of the jury (if the judge said this in front of the jury it would absolutely be improper). That sort of snarkiness is just not uncommon with a cranky judge. The line is more easily crossed, in my mind, when the judge acts arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to evidentiary or other procedures. Once, when I was doing public defender work, a judge cut me off from cross-examining a cop on things he did not note in his police report which, as I am sure all the lawyers here know, is a very common c-x tactic. It was totally improper but a very difficult appellate issue and, for a misdemeanor case, not something that would ever be likely to get serious review. Now that, to me, was way over the line. (it was resolved when the entire public defenders office informed the court administrator at lunch they would immediately and permanently adopt a department policy to paper that judge unless he reversed his position, which he did within an hour.)

    Also, my crack about rarefied air was not snark nor inaccurate. Cases like Manafort's, which are heavily scrutinized in the media and where there are teams of lawyers on both sides, are extremely different from the sort of case I typically try. They are handled very differently by judges, I believe, because they know their every step will be immediately reviewed by the press.
    Late response to this, but I think that personal marks like "are you going to cry now," insinuating that the lawyer is being a baby, is just plain outside of the realm of common decency. Just because you are a judge and you are "cranky" doesn't give you license to insult your colleagues. I'm sorry that you have been so badly treated in your career that you think this is normal or acceptable.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  9. #1479
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    Late response to this, but I think that personal marks like "are you going to cry now," insinuating that the lawyer is being a baby, is just plain outside of the realm of common decency. Just because you are a judge and you are "cranky" doesn't give you license to insult your colleagues. I'm sorry that you have been so badly treated in your career that you think this is normal or acceptable.
    I don't know how many trials Creekster's had in Vegas, but given the limited number of cases I've had in California, about three, I could also speak about whacky judges in California, or even on the 9th Circuit.

    Now, I'm not stating we have the most erudite, or most polite set of judges, but I'm doubtful Nevada or Vegas are worse than any place else. Outsiders usually get home-towned wherever you are, that's why you associate local counsel.

    We have several judges who seem to think they are smarter than counsel and therefore show their disrespect to counsel, trying to embarrass them or to smack them down. Not much judicial demeanor there.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  10. #1480
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    Late response to this, but I think that personal marks like "are you going to cry now," insinuating that the lawyer is being a baby, is just plain outside of the realm of common decency. Just because you are a judge and you are "cranky" doesn't give you license to insult your colleagues. I'm sorry that you have been so badly treated in your career that you think this is normal or acceptable.
    Outside the bounds of common decency? Snowflakes, indeed. I read the actual transcript of that exchange (which was outside the jury's presence) and it just doesn't strike me as that bad or even unusual. And, honestly, if you cant take that from a judge then you probably shouldn't be a litigator who handles trials. Sometimes you need to push very hard on a judge and judges can get pissed off. As you may have seen in the news, in subsequent days the trial judge admitted he had acted improperly before the jury and gave an instruction to that effect. This did not involve the "are you crying?" exchange.

    BTW, Nevada is no worse than California. The worst judge I have ever seen is a guy in the Northern District of CA. Its just the nature of trials. People get excited when the stakes are high.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  11. #1481

    Default

    With the Manafort Convictions and Cohen Plea, President Trump Has Been Implicated in a Criminal Conspiracy

    The President of the United States is now, formally, implicated in a criminal conspiracy to mislead the American public in order to influence an election. Were he not President, Donald Trump himself would almost certainly be facing charges. This news came in what must be considered the most damaging single hour of a deeply troubled Presidency.

    On Tuesday morning, it was still possible to believe that Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort might be exonerated and that his longtime attorney Michael Cohen would only face charges for crimes stemming from his taxicab business. Such events would have supported Trump’s effort to portray the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt” perpetrated by overzealous, partisan prosecutors. By late afternoon, though, Cohen, the President’s long-time adviser, fixer, and, until recently, personal attorney, told a judge that Trump explicitly instructed him to break campaign-finance laws by paying two women not to publicly disclose the affairs they had with Trump. At precisely the same moment, Manafort was learning of his fate: guilty on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, with the jury undecided on ten other counts.

    The question can no longer be whether the President and those closest to him broke the law. That is settled. Three of the people closest to Trump as he ran for and won the Presidency have now pleaded guilty or have been convicted of significant federal crimes: Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. The question now becomes far narrower and, for Trump, more troubling: What is the political impact of a President’s criminal liability being established in a federal court? How will Congress respond? And if Congress does not act, how will voters respond in the midterm elections?

    The President spoke to reporters soon after the Manafort and Cohen news. He said that the Manafort guilty verdicts made him feel “very badly,” but they “had nothing to do with Russian collusion.” He then walked away, as reporters shouted questions about the Cohen guilty plea. While his comment was, technically, correct—neither man’s guilt was for crimes involving the Trump campaign colluding with Russia—the President would be unwise to consider the outcome of either case beneficial. Manafort was convicted of crimes he committed while being paid tens of millions for serving the interests of oligarchs and politicians closely allied with the Kremlin. The trial made clear that Manafort was in tremendous financial distress, in hock to some of those same oligarchs, just when he became Trump’s unpaid campaign chair. The trial contained a central but unasked question: What did this desperate man do when he needed money and had only one valuable asset—access to Trump and his campaign? Manafort, who faces decades in prison, is under renewed pressure to coŲperate with Mueller’s investigation and to answer that question.

    It is the Cohen plea that should be the most alarming, though, to the President, precisely because it has nothing to do with Russia. Instead, it demonstrates a comfort with law-breaking by people at the core of the Trump Organization. Cohen’s guilty plea is part of a long trail of evidence. Last month, a tape recording of Trump speaking with Cohen showed that the President had familiarity and comfort with the idea of using shell companies to disguise payoffs that, we now know, were illegal. This echoed evidence from depositions in a lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General against the Trump Foundation that suggested deceptive—and almost certainly illegal—practices were standard at the Trump Organization. Cohen admitted in open court that Trump directed him to violate campaign-finance laws. Later in the day, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, issued a public statement that included these lines: “Today [Cohen] stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

    The day had a feeling, on one level, of history, of recognizing that one is living through moments that will become central parts of the Trump Presidency. At the same time, the day felt small and shabby, as we learned more details about the crude crimes of those who surround the President. Manafort and Cohen did not commit clever, subtle crimes; they blatantly and crudely lied. They lied to banks to get money; they lied to the I.R.S. In Manafort’s case, he instructed countless support people to lie on his behalf. In Cohen’s case, it was Trump demanding that a subordinate do the lying. The crimes were not unravelled by brilliant detective work. All it took was law-enforcement officials looking.

    It is conventional wisdom these days that views of Trump are fixed: those who hate him can’t hate him more and those who love him can’t be budged, and, all the while, Republicans in Congress will do nothing, no matter what he says or does. There is another way of understanding the impact of Tuesday’s news. Trump was widely viewed to be morally challenged, a man comfortable with pushing the limits of legality, before he was elected. Perhaps he did business with some bad characters, maybe he engaged in some light civil fraud. But that fact had been priced into the election and, anyway, we don’t impeach Presidents for things they did before they were in office. The possibility of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia was a separate matter that was worth investigating because it had to do with his election. Keeping these two matters separate—Trump’s private business and possible campaign collusion—has been an obsession of Trump’s, for obvious reasons. His business cannot withstand this level of scrutiny.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/...nal-conspiracy
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  12. #1482
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    2,663

    Default

    Thank you for sharing frank:

    The President spoke to reporters soon after the Manafort and Cohen news. He said that the Manafort guilty verdicts made him feel “very badly,” but they “had nothing to do with Russian collusion.” He then walked away, as reporters shouted questions about the Cohen guilty plea. While his comment was, technically, correct—neither man’s guilt was for crimes involving the Trump campaign colluding with Russia
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. --President Donald J. Trump

    Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump

    You furnish the pictures, and Iíll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •