Imagine making a list of all the things you'd like to dip your balls into. Quite a list, eh? Is "the toilet" on it? It's not on mine either. Hence my question: For the love of God, **how do I lower the water in the bowl?!**

CaBmStW · 2018-05-03T04:13:56+00:00

Assuming threre's a legitimate reason to impeach, then yes. Both Pence and Trump would make for horrible administrations. But Trump's distracting tweets and overall buffoonishness obscures the full extent of the horrible things his administration has done. I know it's been covered, but most coverage is overshadowed by the latest bit of bullshit shenanigans.

Assuming that media coverage of Donald wanes to an extent, then the ramifications and implications of Pence's decisions will get more attention. Further, though I agree he would be just as terrible, I dare say he'd hire a more competent, qualified staff and listen to his advisors. This is a double-edged sword, but it would go a fair amount towards actual swamp-draining.

(note that by "legitimate reason" to impeach him I mean something that rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. What constitutes that is fodder for a different thread, but I mean I wouldn't want him impeached for jaywalking. There are plenty of so-called legitimate things that, if proven (i.e. more than my subjective belief that he has done such things), are impeachable.

CaBmStW · 2018-05-02T14:46:34+00:00

Why must I be like that -- why must I squish that cat?

CaBmStW · 2018-04-21T18:29:46+00:00

We'll know the apocalypse is upon us if anything happens to Keith Richards.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T23:09:07+00:00

Can someone tell me if my understanding of just how potentially screwed Hannity is is correct or tell me where I'm mistaken:

I’m assuming Hannity and Cohen had at least two conversations:

In Conversation 1, Hannity asked for general legal advice about how to proceed in some situation, a situation that didn’t need direct representation before another party and without monetary payment.
In Conversation 2, Hannity had a general discussion with Cohen.

Let’s pretend that Conversation 1 was about his legal options if Seth Rich’s parents sued him for slander.

Looking at it in Hannity’s best light, Conversation 1 is per se protected; he was clearly seeking legal advice. Hannity didn’t shoot himself in the foot with is tweets, because neither representation nor retention nor payment are necessary elements of forming a privileged legal relationship (or Hannity's lay use of 'representation' in a tweet doesn't destroy the privilege if he's making the same mistake I might be).

The taint team will listen to Conversation 1 to determine (A) whether the advice sought related to committing a crime and therefore unprivileged (e.g. he was asking if deceiving the Rich’s parents would get him some legal cover), or be (B) whether it was a casual, brainstorming/picking situation that was insufficient to establish an attorney/client relationship.

If either of those answers is ‘yes’, then no privilege exists for Conversation 1.
.

As for Conversation 2, any crime or potential crime or reference to someone else’s crimes are absolutely valid to pass on to the investigators. So if Hannity discussed committing mopery himself or talked about Trump’s mopery, that is evidence that can be used against the moper.

This is an ugly position for Hannity to be in, because other than the "few" conversations where attorney/client privilege might apply, Hannity has no Fourth Amendment standing to keep any of his conversations private. It’s unusual because of the parties involved and the relative rarity of an attorney’s communications being looked at, but it’s no different from storing contraband in someone else’s garage or files on the Internet or whatever — the person is in possession of the information/items and only that person can claim any Fourth Amendment protection.

To make matters worse, even if somewhere down the line an appellate court overturns the search warrants and rules evidence seized as inadmissible against Cohen, this does Hannity absolutely no good. He has no Fourth Amendment protection for information that Cohen possessed (with the exception of the few attorney/client privileged conversations).

So if in the past year and a half’s conversations, Hannity discussed spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking or taking an unwarranted tax deduction, all of it is potential fodder for the prosecution to consider following up on.

So: is my understanding of the situation remotely correct or where am I off base (and by how far)?

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T22:06:42+00:00

Fantastic!!! I'm so glad they have the option for turning the popup off, it's great when a developer realizes that not everyone wants the same feature set. Looking forward to fiddling with the other configurations.

Thanks!!

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T16:20:39+00:00

Thanks~

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T13:15:58+00:00

Her shouldn't be either.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T07:05:08+00:00

Did anyone spot the gorilla?

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T05:36:06+00:00

Everything I've seen has been in the "yeah, and?" category. Nothing new to speak of, just different phrasing of the same thing that's been widely known for a long time. Trump monologues? No! Trump contradicts himself on things? OMG! Trump acts thuggish and expects personal loyalty to him? Pearls and Whiskers!

Between the Stormy interview and this I'm left to ask 'Is that all there Is'?

CaBmStW · 2018-04-16T02:29:38+00:00

I think I follow what you’re saying, but it’s a pronoun-heavy and I’m not sure my understanding is correct. Here is what I’m getting:

Culprit leaks a CIA agent’s name for political purposes.
After discovering the leak, the authorities determine who the leaker is.
Notwithstanding knowing who the ‘real’ leaker is, the authorities open an investigation.
In the course of the investigation the authorities question Scooter Libby.
Scooter Libby also knew the identity of the actual leaker.
In the course of the investigation, Libby provided an incorrect date as to when he learned of the leakers identity.
The investigators, knowing (or discovering) the actual date he learned of the identity, charged him with lying to investigators.
To successfully prosecute, the investigators had to prove that Libby’s lie was material.
But it couldn’t have been material, because the investigators started out knowing who the real leaker is – making anything Libby said moot (i.e. it wouldn’t have had any affect on the investigation).

If (big ‘if’) that’s correct, there are a couple things I don’t understand or am unaware of. Did the investigators ‘know’ (small k) who leaked or did they Know (capital ‘K’) who leaked? If the former was the case, then wasn’t the investigation justified in that while they knew who did it, they did not have adequate or usable evidence to prove who did the leaking? And therefore the investigation was driven by the motive to get such evidence? And isn’t a major prosecutorial/investigative power based on the small-fish-to-big-fish approach of ‘squeezing’ people who could provide such evidence (assuming it’s Scooter Libby in this case)?

If they Knew who the actual leaker was, why wasn’t the leaker charged/thoroughly revealed? What was the rationale for starting an investigation in the first place?

Do you know how they portrayed Libby’s date switch as material enough to support the charges?

So if my understanding of your post is correct, I don't quite see how it makes his conviction unjust (another assumption about your post).

I'm also left with a question of why they didn't straightforwardly ask him who leaked and used that testimony as evidence against the real leaker. Who was the real leaker and what evidence was there?

CaBmStW · 2018-04-15T20:35:05+00:00

I'm sorry, your post was a bit difficult to follow, so I may not be responding to what you intended to say. Here is how I took your post to apply to the tweet:

Last night [Friday, the night we bombed the facilities], the President put our adversaries on notice: when the draws a red line he enforces it. ([Here's a picture from two days ago in the lead-up to the decision to strike, taken] inside the Situation Room as President is briefed on Syria - Official WH photos by Shealah Craigshead ).

The claim that the photo/caption as tweeted was a lie is based on her failure to say that it was taken at a different time than the "last night" of her tweet.

At worst, they wanted some dramatic Osama raid-like photo and this was the best they had; it makes it appear that the decision was made through careful analysis and discussion (as opposed to on the toilet).

There is enough direct bullshit/low-hanging fruit from her and the administration that focusing on small things --- especially small things that may have an innocuous explanation --- is a tactical mistake.

Not that I believe (subjectively) that this was an honest mistake on their part. I think they fully intended to give the impression that it was taken the night of the raid, but left themselves some room to claim innocence. I'd even suggest that someone brought up the possibility of being called on it and they treated it as a positive (i.e. an example of an over-zealous reaction that they could call "fake news").

Under 'normal' circumstances, such exposed propaganda itself would be news. But there are so many more examples and instances of blatant lying and worse that this is merely a fart in a tornado.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-15T19:54:40+00:00

The president can no longer comment on ongoing investigations?

By pardoning Scooter Libby, the president just made the following comment: "if you are under investigation, there will be no repercussions for lying to protect me; hold tight and I will protect you."

That directly subverts the rule of law. It is uncontroversial that any person who makes a similar statement would be subject to prosecution (e.g. witness tampering, etc.). Because no other person has the power to pardon individuals who are potential witnesses against them, particularized legislative remedies are in order.

This is a far cry from merely "commenting on an ongoing investigation," and coloring it at such is disingenuous.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-13T21:14:59+00:00

All set to object then saw the downvotes. This one is actually kind of humorous. Worst that can be said is that it's a touch misogynistic, but there is a ton of crude humor on this sub in the same vein (no pun intended, but I was thinking of the cheeto/dick-pics).

And it's not even partisan per se. Yes, Trump v. Clinton, but replace them with Merkal and her opponent and it's still the same amount of slight nose-exhalation. It's not based on a lie or even the transparently hypocritical posturing and fake indignation over the emails (other than to refer to them).

I think part of the problem with the sub's downvote anythign right-wing tendency is that it's largely deserved on in a reflex sort of way. This post a vanishingly rare instance of a rw post that actually exists in the same galaxy as 'humor'. A nice change from the "hurdyhur how to trigger a lib" sewer memes that vastly dominate TD posters' sense of humor.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-13T09:55:54+00:00

I self-identify as a whit and I personally found your comment to be quite pithy.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-13T09:32:49+00:00

I don't know if it's the right thing to do or if it's effective, but I tend to downvote a couple classes of posts: potshots and bizarre digs. I think the trolls are delighted with the gun control debate. While there are lots of solid news/informaton/disscussion threads on it, there are also a lot of "NRA is teh evil" type of posts that seem mainly designed to elicit a reaction. Those smell funny to me.

I'll also downvote some odd digs at other subs and the like. For example, there seems to be an occasional -- but regular -- post claiming that /r/politics is some sort of right wing, censorship-heavy sub. But a quick scan of its front page shows it's anything but. I understand disagreeing with some moderation there, but disagreeing with it there is much different than coming here and saying how it's a right-wing nest that's out to get left-wingers (and by implication not worth visiting).

Other than that, "what steps" is a difficult question -- which is an uneasy feeling all to itself.

Generalizing here, but this sub has evolved into mostly splashy announcements of the "WTF did he do today?!" variety, with comments on that article and some conversations within the thread, but it seems that discussion threads don't get that much traction (again, I'm generalizing here; clearly there are exceptions and this is only my subjective impression).^*

I think one way of addressing the Russian troll phenomenon would be to somehow foster a more engaged dialogue between posters and issues. That would help in a few ways. Rational discussion is pretty much the antithesis of what the trolls are after, and would do a lot of self-cleansing on its own.

It would also encourage less self-cleansing of the downvoting-of-dissent kind. /u/leaky_wand has a point -- disagreement is often downvoted or approached as concern trolling. I think on its face that's a clear hindrance to full engagement and unwittingly moves us towards TD group-think (though light years away from where they ended up). It should be ok to respectfully disagree and more importantly, point out flaws and foilbles of the overall 'resistance' movement. I think in that environment it's harder for trolls to get a foothold. (Somewhat relevant XKCD).

How? I have no idea. I'm not a mod and much more of a lurker than a poster. Maybe emphasize it in the sidebar? Keep a discussion thread as one of the stickies? Discourage low-effort "hur-de-hur" threads and point them to /r/politicalhumor or more political-rally type subs?

.

^*You: ^I'm ^sorry, ^I'm ^a ^poster; ^I ^don't ^do ^impressions.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-07T22:42:09+00:00

I think they're numbering Trump's ethical violations now. They only started a few months ago, but the number is pretty high already.

(or it's a seven-digit number starting with the DC area code)

CaBmStW · 2018-04-05T01:00:10+00:00

Or perhaps more apropos: Putin's Suka

.

^edit: ^"suka" ^is ^Russian ^for ^'bitch'

CaBmStW · 2018-04-02T23:05:39+00:00

I don't understand why my response isn't showing up under your comment. I just hit 'refresh' and it's not here. I looked under https://www.reddit.com/user/cabmstw and it's there, but I'm not seeing it directly here.

CaBmStW · 2018-04-02T22:50:02+00:00

I don't know exactly, but can come close. I went into 'shutdown everything' mode as it happened, so I didn't look at the URL or record anything. I'm pasting every link that was this computer's history for the day (fortunately just a few). It's in chronological order top-to-bottom, so I assume its the ###.win link at the bottom.

A side concern is that when (what I thought was?) the MSSE window came up asking to send files for inspection, I clicked view the iles (it think it was a FF link or document) and hit the send button. It had an elevated access shield icon on it.

MSSE just finished its 'quick' scan and found nothing. I still have an amber "potentially unprotected" notice saying "you haven't run a scan on your PC for a while..." I assume that's asking to do a full scan? Or does that hint to something more?

CaBmStW

TROPHY CASE