Re: Michael Avenatti
 

I saw that. My new crush is on the former attorney's lawyer for taking down the stud.

LessinNYC.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Most weeks, I spend less than 40 minutes in a car (or train or bus) in total.

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

Avenatti and Daniels are pure shitballs. She was happy to take the cash when she thought Trump would lose. Now she has buyer's remorse. Avenatti's clearly a very solid lawyer, but he's looking more and more Allred every day. Publicity whore.

All that said, these people deserve Trump, and Trump deserves them. None of us, however, deserve to be exposed to their media dumpster fire for a minute more.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Most weeks, though, you spend more than 40 minutes a week bitching and moaning about cars on twitter.

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

Avenatti has some skills. I am usually not a cable news fan, but seeing him interview is a lot more entertaining than seeing the average interview of some reporter by some talking head host, and he has some fairly deft rhetorical skills you can actually learn something from.

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

Man, that's the densest possible take. You know that this is as much about publicity for her as anything, right?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Damn straight

Re: Whew
 

There are parallels between Starr's prosecution of Clinton and the current mess.

There's reason to investigate Trump. There was no legitimate reason to investigate Clinton. That is an important difference.

But once we get beyond the validity of the investigation into Russian meddling, we have to look at the scope of the investigation. Starr tortured the McDougals, Lewinsky, and a whole host of Clinton associates for no other reason than to nail the President. In the end, he came up with a blow job.

Mueller is torturing everybody in Trump's circle to find out if chargeable collusion took place. I think he's more principled than Starr, so I believe his aim is simply to flip people to find out the truth. But "flipping people" is ruining people's lives. Cohen's an idiot. Manafort's a shady fuck. Flynn's a greed-addled fool. And let's not even get into Roger Stone (who seems to want to be indicted). And what they did may be criminal. But it was also something else:

A set of "crimes" which would never have been uncovered or pursued but for Mueller's desire to flip these people on Trump.

If I want to charge you with a felony under the Fed Crim Code, I can do it. The Code is so broad, it's almost impossible for any American to live his life without having violated it numerous times. Cohen, Manafort, et al. would be under zero scrutiny right now if Trump had lost. Like millions of other shady operators, they'd be going about their shady business and no one would care. (Manafort was the subject of an earlier DOJ investigation for the same stuff for which he is now charged. That investigation was dropped.)

I understand these people "bought the ticket and so take the ride." I get it. But this sort of selective destruction bugs me now the same way it bugged me regarding Clinton. The same way it bugged me regarding Conrad Black and Martha Stewart. The same it way it really irks the shit out of me that Fed prosecutors take deterrent value of prosecuting high profile people into account in their decisions to prosecute.

We're having a national conversation about targeting minorities for prosecution at the state and locals levels. We all agree that's wrong. And that is not at all close to what Mueller is doing. But selective prosecution, targeting people to "flip" in a very political investigation, is also treating one person differently than others. I'm not suggesting we should ban it, because it does serve some purposes. But right now, it may not be raised as a defense. That should be changed. People should be able to plead selective prosecution as a defense and a sentencing mitigation. Otherwise, people like Mueller and Starr are basically granted God-like powers to rampantly destroy as they see fit. No one should have that kind of power.

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

Did I say that was her only reason? Of course she wants publicity. But not as much as Avenatti. Not even close.

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

Agreed. He's good. Skills are there.

Allred is also quite good.

Re: Whew
 

Fine with talking about this stuff, but the Mark Penn value add = 0.

Maybe, maybe not. What Rosenstein authorized him to go after is broader than just looking at collusion, and is not public. What we know about what Mueller is doing comes from a few public charges and a lot of leaks from defense lawyers, neither of which gives a complete picture of what Mueller knows or is pursuing.

Dunno, Starr was pretty principled. Not my principles, but he had them. The main difference between then seems more to be that was nothing to Whitewater, but it's clear that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

"may"?

Mueller has not been given God-like powers. He reports to Rosenstein, under specific authority granted by Rosenstein. This is different from Starr, who got to do whatever he wants.

Second, Mueller is not running a political investigation. Republicans are mounting a political defense. There's a big difference.

Re: Whew
 

It's becoming increasingly clear that they didn't start out investigating Trump, but rather foreign efforts to interfere. A candidate and campaign with any sense at all would have realized that this is done to protect the candidate not persecute him. It seems the candidate did not want protection and was just fine with whatever foreign help he could get.

Trump associated himself with criminals, and they're being criminally prosecuted for it. I don't see the Lewinsky parallel at all.

Cohen's been on the edge of criminality for years and then seemed to go out an overtly try to illegally sell access. Why should he not face prosecution (by the SDNY no less) for that?

This is an indictment about how bad we are at prosecuting white collar crime.

If Trump, Cohen and Manafort have been up to the money-laundering it sure looks like they've been up to, we should be lamenting that so few prosecutions for that type of crime happen, rather than viewing them as victims.

BTW, y'all should be listening to Trump, Inc., which pretty regularly creates "wow, how wasn't that something I learned during the campaign" moments.

Re: Whew
 

This is absolute garbage. You should be ashamed you even thought it, let alone wrote it.

TM

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

Honestly, I think it's as much about the politics for him as the publicity. He's a Former Emmanuel op research guy. The publicity seems to be the strategy more than the goal.

Re: Whew
 

I did crim defense. Prosecutors are frightening creatures. Too much power. Way too much.

Re: Michael Avenatti
 

I could buy that.

Speaking of strategy, or lack thereof: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...ive-takes-hold

Re: Whew
 

Is there some country you know of where that isn't true?

Re: Whew
 

Look, I get it. But the fact that you are trying to draw some weak ass comparison between Starr's investigation (which was built on nothing and basically found nothing) and Mueller's, which has brought back a number of indictments and exposed evidence of serious crime and unprecedented levels of interference from a foreign government with the fucking blessing and encouragement (at best) of the current President of the United States on what looks to be a quid pro quo basis, makes your whole post ridiculous.

You started off saying it's all a big nothing burger. Now you're talking about crimes that were committed that wouldn't have been prosecuted because we wouldn't have known about them without there being a special counsel. What? Just stop it.

TM

Re: Whew
 

It may be true that prosecutors have way too much power in all countries, but that does not mean that they don't have a greater tendency to abuse that power in this country. And even if that is not the case, it does not mean that Sebastian cannot have viscerally negative reactions to prosecutorial abuses in this country, even if it is just as bad or worse in other countries. That all being said, I completely agree with Thurgreed that Sebastian should be ashamed for even having thought the ideas that ended up being the words that he typed into that post. This adds to the following, non-exhaustive list of things that Sebastian should be totally ashamed about:

-Trump
-Not apologizing about Trump
-Desperately and absurdly trying to find positive aspects of the Trump presidency, in a ridiculous "at least he makes the train run on time" fashion, so that he can somehow feel o.k. with himself about not apologizing for Trump
-The whole horns in rock fiasco
-Calling Lil Jon "Little John"
-The "crisp" and "floral" bouquet of his favorite small batch craft-distilled gin
-Not being ashamed about any of the above (except the Lil Jon thing, which he said he is ashamed about and I will take him at his word on that)

Re: Whew
 

He should be ashamed about comparing Starr and Mueller.

He also should be ashamed that the criminality of Flynn, Manafort and Cohen make him think of prosecutorial misconduct, unless he has such a sensitive gag reflex that sunshine and shoes and puppies also elicit the same response, in which case he should seek Scotch and medical help, in that order.

Re: Whew
 

Given that he is the only one here that voted to make Trump President, his opinion on Starr/Mueller is the most important, is it?

Re: Whew
 

Not seeing it. You're suggesting we need to change his mind before the next election, and that means we should entertain fatuous comparisons of things that are quite different?

Re: Whew
 

I agree with this, although I think I covered this all already when I said: "That all being said, I completely agree with Thurgreed that Sebastian should be ashamed for even having thought the ideas that ended up being the words that he typed into that post."

Some other things he should be ashamed of (again, non-exhaustive):

-Citing that lunatic Cernovich as a neutral unbiased source.
-Every conversation he has allegedly had at every suburban cocktail party has allegedly attended. Ever.
-Every time he used the phrase "echo chamber." Normally I would give him one free pass, but fuck that.
-The fact that I suspect he secretly kind of likes the Dave Matthews Band.
-The fact the he is soon going to disingenuously deny his secret admiration for the Dave Matthews Band.

Re: Whew
 

Someone somewhere better be ashamed for the whole anti-piper in Rock sentiments expressed here not long ago.

More Murphys here for the Harvard/Yale Crowd.

Re: Whew
 

Objecting to bagpipes in rock seems to like objecting to haggis at a buffet. It's probably an acquired taste, but, hey, whatever gets your kilt going.

You always wanna hear the same old song.
 

I’m not ashamed of my fondness of the music played on the “Acoustic Estrogen” and “Lesbian Grrls” channels on Sirius XM.

Re: Whew
 

off my corner, ho.

Re: Whew
 

Outside violent crime, I've never seen a prosecution where I rooted for the prosecutor. It's not in my soul. Which is another way of saying, I have a soul.

(I could root for a prosecution of someone like Angelo Mozillo. Or some other miscreants who contributed to the 2008 crisis. But we'll never see those prosecutions. See: Holder Doctrine.)

Re: Whew
 

Not doing this again.

See above

I always take the side of the person being piled upon. Authority issues.

I always exempted Traffic. Horns in rock fall into the Bill Clinton-on-abortion analysis. They can be included, they are acceptable, but they should be rare.

I am ashamed for this.

How else does one describe rose petal flavoring?

I am really, seriously ashamed about that.

Re: Whew
 

You don't think there's something just a tiny bit qualitatively different about having sold our democracy to whichever foreign interest were offering?

So it doesn't count as a prosecution unless it does to trial, or what? Because Mozilo paid a $67.5 million fine and is banned from public companies.

Re: Whew
 

I didn't know who he was. But even if he's a degenerate, if all you can do is shoot the messenger...

I've held forth impressively on hand painted wallpaper, and driveway sealant. You judge without all the facts.

I'll use pile-on from now on.

I like "Two Step." But only because I used to have sex to it a lot.

I secretly love that song that goes, "I eat too much/I drink too much... Too Much!" over and over again. Ya got me.

"Crash" was a miserable song. "Hike up your skirt a little more/And show the world to me..." ...And trip my gag reflex. I want to call it the height of treacliness, but I'm not sure that's a word. And I'm not sure it's strong enough. Borrowing from "Start Me Up," that "makes a hard man soft."

Re: Whew
 

I no longer remember what it was that you shared from him, but I do recall also pointing out that it was obvious bullshit.

And I still don't think you grasp that citing him is more or less the same as citing Alex Jones. Nothing beyond pointing out the source should be needed.

Re: Whew
 

That's laughably overwrought. They went trawling for dirt and were happy to take it from Russians. Politicians of old did far worse. And I'm sure they also did the same. In days past, however, the trail couldn't be investigated. Now we have electronic data and records adequate to determine how the dirty tricks were performed.

Right. If you're a rich criminal who can dime out "Friends of Angelo" such as Chris Dodd, you get a fine. If you're a rich fool who uses inside info to avoid half a million in stock losses like Stewart, but you have no dirt on politically powerful people, you're made "an example... for deterrent purposes." And if you're not rich at all, and you're just dealing drugs, well fuck you -- you get 10 years for trafficking.

We pick and choose who gets crucified and who gets a pass in this country on the most arbitrary and indefensible bases. I'm not suggesting undoing the system entirely. I don't think you can have a justice system without some selective prosecution. I'm merely suggesting selective prosecution be an allowed defense and mitigating factor in sentencing.

Consider the cocaine vs. crack debacle. Congress only rectified that inequity after recognizing the law was predatory and discriminatory. Is it any less predatory to jail Martha Stewart over something for which you and I would only receive a fine? (Because we both know, that's all that would happen to a Joe Shmoe who used inside info to the small degree Martha did.)

People should be able to point back at the prosecutor, break down the fourth wall and say, "I'm being treated unfairly versus others because this prosecutor is politically ambitious/wants a famous scalp for 'deterrent value'/wants to test a novel legal theory." Prosecutors should always be at a decided disadvantage in a country that actually gives a shit about its citizens' rights. Instead, we've a system where they hold all the cards.

Re: Whew
 

I'm of the opinion Bon Scott could do no wrong. But I'm also happy that AC/DC never allowed him to do it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIXV0cir4-E

Re: Whew
 

I didn't. I had no idea who he was. But what he was citing at that time wasn't Alex Jones type shit. I recall it being some leak that he'd acquired.

You assume I know a lot about the right wing. I don't. I don't care much about it. Now, knowing he's an asshat, I would not cite the man.

But wherever it comes from, if a thing happens to be a fact, it's a fact.

Re: Whew
 

"All Down The Line" is pure, raw, rock and roll from one of the Stones' grimiest albums, Exile. Like a number of other Stones songs from this era, it uses horn lines throughout, but particularly starting at the 3:02 mark of the video. The horns do not sound like an add-on or a superfluous flourish by some producer who had too much time on his hands. Nor are they an attempt to soften the song, like putting in some strings to smooth down the rough edges. They hit as hard as the guitar riffs or the drum fills. This song, standing alone, is a complete, devastating, and dispositive rebuttal to your entire horns in rock argument, even as it has been amended from time to time. Also, the video this person put together is just hilarious. I really wish it was o.k. to dance like that still:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtAsaDKB0eY

Re: Whew
 

It's a nothing burger. Trump himself is not going to get nailed for collusion. Nobody allows the village idiot in on the conspiracy. Political Organization 101: Never give the top guy info that could force him to lie later. Everyone knows that. Even the dimmest bulbs like Flynn.

Manafort and Gates got nailed for tax shenanigans, bank fraud, and failing to register as foreign agents. You could charge half of DC with those crimes if you put them under a microscope. Every white collar prosecution has some bullshit wire or bank fraud claim in it.

They got Flynn for failing to register and whatever else they've refrained from charging regarding his attempts to line his pockets. Ugly? Sure. So he's the Admin's Spiro Agnew.

Papadopoulous: Lying to agents.

Van der Zaaan: Lying to agents. What'd he get? 90 days?

13 of the indictments were Russian techies.

Oh, and of course, I'm sure conspiracy charges were included somewhere in those five indictments of administration people listed above.

Maybe my standard is a bit higher than yours, but this isn't looking like Watergate on Steroids. It's looking like a bunch of sleazy folks with skeletons in their closets who should have known better than to get involved with pikers like the Trump Org. And who'd otherwise be walking around, enjoying their ill-gotten gains, as millions of others do (particularly in their chosen fields) all day long.

So yeah, nothing burger. For now. But I wait to be surprised by Mueller... He's a smart and thorough guy. If there's something, he'll find it. But it's not going to nail Trump himself. And no, obstruction won't cut it.

Re: Whew
 

I speak no ill of Bobby Keys. "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" is one of the very best.

But horns over guitar add a layer that makes the overall sound a bit muddy. In my opinion, the Stones sound their best with just guitar, drums, and bass. That includes Mick's harmonica (except on "Midnight Rambler," where for some reason, it works).

(I also dislike Neil Young's and Dylan's occasional overuse of harmonica.)

ETA: I like Jones' sitar. Sitar can be added to any song. You can't get too much sitar. But that's a string instrument, so it's no surprise I'm a fan.

ETA2: Violin and fiddle are okay as well, but one should be careful not to sound like the band in Revenge of the Nerds. And Jimmy Page had no business using a bow with a guitar. Have you ever listened to a 25 minute "Dazed and Confused" and thought, "Gee, what really made that great was the 14 minute bow-on-guitar 'solo' in the middle." (That song reminds me of Floyd's "Interstellar Overdrive." You start listening and think, what a great hook! Then a minute in the song devolves into moronic noodling, only to surge back into that awesome hook again for thirty seconds at the end. Fuck you, Syd. Fuck you.)

Re: Whew
 

Music is subjective, taste is subjective, but you are wrong. As additional, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof of your wrongness, I offer the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNP-x94-SE

Re: Whew
 

Fixed that for you.