April 10, 2018

"I think when push comes to shove, he is going to fold like a cheap deck of cards. I really do."

"With that said, I don’t, I’m not applauding or high-fiving anybody’s offices being raided by the FBI. It’s a very, very serious matter. And I think that this is the first significant domino to fall."

Said Michael Avenatti — the lawyer for Stormy Daniels — about Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer.

"Fold like a cheap deck of cards" is a silly thing to say. There is folding in poker, but the players fold, not the cards. Cards never fold on their own, and if a person folded one of the cards — cheap or expensive — it would make the entire deck unusable. As for folding an entire deck of cards — I think the strongest man in the world couldn't do that, even with the cheapest possible cards. So: what a bad simile. And yet it's memorable. It's all over the news today.

By the way, speaking of expressions amped up with the word "cheap," I've never understood "all over him like a cheap suit." Aren't all suits "all over" the person who's wearing it?

336 comments:

1 – 200 of 336   Newer›   Newest»
Chuck said...

You "fold like a cheap lawn chair." You don't fold like a cheap deck of cards.

But Althouse, have you had a look at the picture of Trump on Drudge overnight? I don't know what is cheaper; a lawn chair, a cheap deck of cards or that Trump hairstyle!

Chuck said...

Excuse me; "fold like a cheap suit" or "fold like a lawn chair." Avenatti has even got me confused. It's the Trump hairdo that made me do it.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

"Fold like a cheap cardboard suitcase" is a better option. All suits fold easily, not just the cheap ones.


zipity said...

Yeah, this lawyer is about as scummy as they come. He reportedly is behind the looting of a coffee company, and the theft of tax withholding's from the same companies employees. The only difference I see between him and Stormy is that the people she f**ked consented to it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/before-stormy-daniels-her-attorney-faced-allegations-of-dubious-business-dealings/

"Since his investment firm bought bankrupt Tully’s Coffee for $9.15 million at auction five years ago, Avenatti’s company has been named in more than 50 state and federal legal complaints, including commercial lawsuits, breach of lease actions and warrants for unpaid taxes, court records show."

"In a complaint submitted to the California State Bar Association — and cc’d to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle — Bellevue attorney David Nold asserts Avenatti carried out an illegal “pump and dump” scheme through his Washington state-registered Tully’s ownership firm, Global Baristas US, LLC.

Nold’s complaint contends that while Avenatti ran the company, he fleeced nearly $6 million in federal and state tax withholdings — money meant to be held in trust for payment of quarterly taxes — from the paychecks of Tully’s employees."

David Begley said...

Zipity

If this guy, in fact, didn’t transmit the trust portion of withholding taxes then he is personally liable. That’s the law.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

By the way, speaking of expressions amped up with the word "cheap," I've never understood "all over him like a cheap suit." Aren't all suits "all over" the person who's wearing it?

Adding cheap in this case makes it an insult. All over him like a suit implies that he wears suits, but they could be quite nice, stylish suits. All over him like a cheap suit implies that he wears cheap suits. Since a suit is generally the nicest set a clothes a man wears, saying that the suit he wears is cheap implies that he is low class.

rhhardin said...

The lawyers I'm worried about seem to be the scum in charge, not the scum lawyers at the bottom.

rhhardin said...

Being an officer of the court doesn't mean as much when the courts have gone down the tubes themselves.

Robert Payne said...

Ann is trolling. She simply wants to churn the comments. Powerline is flailing today as well.

Mike Sylwester said...

Remember how the FBI acted while "investigating" Hillary Clinton.

The FBI has become a contemptible, politicized institution. If you want to know why, then remember that it was headed by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller for a long time in recent years.

Michael K said...

This Stormy lawyer sounds like he is mobbed up. Somebody is funding all this.

I would like to know who.

Matthew Sablan said...

Like a cheap suit implies it is not tailored or well fit.

EDH said...

So: what a bad simile. And yet it's memorable. It's all over the news today.

It's exactly the same kind of Chandler "hard-boiled noir simile" I talk about in the Blonde thread below that makes the Frank Drebbin character from Police Squad so funny.

Matthew Sablan said...

Trump organizations apparently destroyed documents despite being warned not to. I wonder if they did it like with a cloth.

Etienne said...

I always liked "folded like a lawn chair".

The use of "cheap" is something like "deplorable".

I think it's properly "he will fold up like a cheap suit". Although expensive suits don't fold up very well either.

EDH said...

Instapundit made the point last night that the raid indicates it's less likely Mueller will charge Trump because the search of an attorney before bringing criminal charges would undermine Mueller's ethical position. By comparison, how many Mob lawyers have been raided to investigate their clients? It's just not done.

That said, others think Mueller's end game vis-a-vis Trump is impeachment, not indictment.

lgv said...

cheap suit = ill-fitting, uncomfortable, irritating, often too big.

bespoke suit = perfect fit and comfort, makes one feel like they look good.

Without the modifier "cheap" it makes no sense. All over him like a suit. The point is not the "all over", it is the fit of the suit.

What is more important is the acknowledgement of Stormy's attorney that the FBI raid of an attorney's office is troubling. I'm unclear how that works. They take everything, read it, then decide what is privileged?

Ann Althouse said...

The lawn chair image is one of collapsing, but what is meant is the kind of folding a poker player does: He looks at his hand and decides not to continue to play. He'll accept his loss and not make it worse by continuing to try to win.

Ann Althouse said...

"Like a cheap suit implies it is not tailored or well fit."

Yeah, but why is it "all over" you any more than a well-tailored suit?

I've always tried to understand it as maybe the suit is grabbing at you in all the wrong places.

MayBee said...

When I hear "all over him like a cheap suit" I, too, think ill-fitting. I think of those pants that ride up your crotch and twist around your legs. SO uncomfortable.

LilyBart said...


Look, it seems like a lot of politicians and lawyers operate in the 'grey zone' of ethics and law. And sometimes they just cross over into criminal behavior. And a lot of them do it - its not a left/right thing. But the 'system' that is supposed to keep this in check seems so unbalanced to me. For example - The government just seems to gloss over ethical problems with Hillary (no intent - but intent is not required), but is going over everything Trump with a fine tooth comb looking for anything to hang an indictment on.

I have no problem with people being punished for wrongdoing. But its the blatant unevenness that is breaking down my believe in this government. I'm losing faith in the system - that is can be fair, and that it can be resilient.

Matthew Sablan said...

Because it shifts around instead of sitting properly I think.

rhhardin said...

It's an attack on America. Voters being overruled by any means necessary.

Grey areas and even some black and white areas used as necessary.

So fire the people who've been overeducated to the point that they can't see America and try their underlings. Perhaps they're still idealistic.

Chris Breisch said...

You've never shuffled a cheap deck of cards, have you?

They break right down the middle after just a few shuffles. They fold, in other words, like a cheap deck of cards.

Robert Payne said...

Michael K-- It may be Tom Steyer for all we know. The fun for me is that Michael Cohen thought he was the big real deal for so many years and now he is bring rolled by Avenati and Stormy, of all people. Porn star succeeds where countless upset tenants failed.

For the Trump supporters here. Yes, I understand your frustration. Yes, I understand your desire to drain the swamp. Yes Hilary and Bill have "issues". But did't your radar go off about Trump before the election? With all of the previous lawsuits that he was involved in? Unless I am mistaken, the US attorney in Manhattan was both appointed by Trump and donated to the campaign--doesn't this maybe help you clue in that there may be actual criminal activity here?

rhhardin said...

It's not Trump support. It's America support.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Some big money for international speeches is more criminal that others.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 8:21 AM
Yes Hilary and Bill have "issues".

The FBI treated Hillary Clinton very differently than it is treating Donald Trump.

The FBI became a politicized institution while it was being headed by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Chris Breisch said...
They break right down the middle after just a few shuffles. They fold, in other words, like a cheap deck of cards.


Still, it confuses the two meanings of 'fold' with respect to cards.

Interestingly, if you put "cheap cardboard suitcase" into Google one of first options to come up is a link to Alibaba, who will be happy to sell you a cheap cardboard suitcase, highlighting once again the sources of our enormous trade deficit with China.

LilyBart said...

But did't your radar go off about Trump before the election?

My 'radar' was beeping like crazy with Clinton. I knew I couldn't vote for her when Comey came out and explained that she was above the law. I also saw a 'blind eye' turned on things that people in the Obama admin did.

I support the law being upheld. I support punishment for lawlessness - whether is 'my side' or not. What I object to the unevenness of it. I think its will destroy peoples' faith in government - the exact faith the government needs to govern successfully.

Owen said...

rhhardin: "...fire the people..". Check out Scott Adams today. He is off-the-wall ready to fire everyone involved over. He makes IMHO a good point about "red lines." Mueller and the SDNY US Attorney have crossed one by raiding the office of Trump's lawyer and violating the attorney-client privilege. Most of us intuitively sense that privilege is akin to the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures --but even more so. Short of criminal collusion, what you confide to your attorney, to ponder and plan your way through the labyrinth of law, especially criminal law, is sacro effing sanct. And Mueller and his cowboys just blew through that. Insofar as people speak up to justify what Mueller and his cowboys did, they will inflame serious and widespread resistance. This is crazy stuff; way over the Watergate line.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 8:21 AM
did't your radar go off about Trump before the election?

Didn't your radar go off about Clinton before the election?

Sebastian said...

"that there may be actual criminal activity here?"

The suspicion that "there may be actual criminal activity here" is not usually sufficient justification for raiding a lawyer's office.

The suspicion that there may be "criminal activity" related to the campaign is not usually sufficient justification for this kind of assault or, for that matter, for any heavy-handed enforcement beyond fines.

If the suspected "criminal activity" is limited to the Stormy payoff, that is an especially small-potatoes justification for a dramatic assault.

Without more evidence of more serious criminal activity that could not be addressed through the ordinary process, this looks for now like a highly selective abuse of authority aimed at undermining Trump.

Achilles said...

“For the Trump supporters here. Yes, I understand your frustration. Yes, I understand your desire to drain the swamp. Yes Hilary and Bill have "issues". But did't your radar go off about Trump before the election?“

When you leftists look back at this point in a year you will realize that the brazen lawlessness your side is pushing now was a bad idea.

As soon as it becomes clear to the majority the law is a tool leftists are not subject to and only use to overturn elections they are not going to stop us when we get started.

Please keep up the aw shucks routine. You may be smart enough to understand what is coming for you.

Wilbur said...

I believe he meant to reference collapsing like a house of cards.

But there's many a slip between mind and mouth.

Achilles said...

There is a part of me cheering that the leftists are stupid enough to impeach trump over paying off a porn star.

Robert Payne said...

Achilles, Mike and Sebastian:

Sure, go ahead and prosecute both Clintons as far as I am concerned.

So, I am curious, short of a violent crime, what is a line that Trump would have to have stepped over for you to either support indictment or impeachment?

Would Money Laundering be enough?

Tax Evasion?

Or would any financial crime not be a big enough deal?

Just to be clear, I do not want him to go down for a "relatively" minor crime. It must be big enough for there to be no doubt about its seriousness for supporters as well.

Birkel said...

Folding like a cheap suit:

In my mind it wasn't the folding that mattered. Every suit folds.

Rather, upon unfolding the cheap suit there are wrinkles that make it unwearable. A good suit can be folded, unfolded, and worn.

But I am perfectly happy to be educated that I am wrong.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 8:50 AM
what is a line that Trump would have to have stepped over for you to either support indictment or impeachment?

Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Snark said...

Re all over like a cheap suit - it means to confer that feeling when one is wearing cheap, ill-fitting clothes. You're just very aware of them and can't really get away from that awareness. They feel wrong, uncomfortable, clingy, shifty - whatever. So somebody being all over you like that is somebody who is creating a similar feeling. Maybe they're overbearing, or too close for comfort, or relentless, or irritating etc. - things along that line.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 8:50 AM
Just to be clear, I do not want him to go down for a "relatively" minor crime.

Do you want to set a precedent where every future President -- including even Democrat Presidents -- and all his associates will be subjected to a similar fishing expedition and witch hunt conducted by a Special Counsel?

Sebastian said...

"I do not want him to go down for a "relatively" minor crime. It must be big enough for there to be no doubt about its seriousness for supporters as well."

Unlike Dems, I do not want any president to "go down." Unlike Dems, I do not want to speculate about what kind of crime might be sufficient for a president to "go down." Unlike Dems, I regard such feverish speculation as a political perversion.

If I were to speculate, I would set the bar fairly high for indictment while in office--something on the order of Ted-like manslaughter or Bill-like rape. Impeachment is a political process, of course.

But the immediate issue at hand is not the supposed "crime" for which Trump should "go down," but the extraordinary raid on a lawyer's office, which, without much more serious justification than has been given thus far, looks like a gross abuse of authority.

I despise the political weaponization of law. I am willing to be convinced this isn't that, but so far it looks like that is what it is.

robother said...

Trump has to fire Mueller now. Mueller is not even pretending to be bound by the rule of law, he is determined to take Trump down. Yes, the Left and media will portray it as a Saturday Night Massacre, a coverup, impeachable offense, blah, blah, blah. But if Trump fails to fire Mueller, Mueller will take that as a green light to take down Trump By Any Means Necessary, destroying the personal life of any lawyer who represents Trump, any official who is appointed by Trump.

Achilles said...

Robert Payne said...
Achilles, Mike and Sebastian:

“Sure, go ahead and prosecute both Clintons as far as I am concerned.”

You know that it would never happen and you will still vote for democrats. You are complicit.

“So, I am curious, short of a violent crime, what is a line that Trump would have to have stepped over for you to either support indictment or impeachment?”

I had a TS/SCI clearance. If I did what Hillary did I would be in jail for life. Period. I probably would have disappeared to a box container in Afghanistan. I am just one of the little people.

I don’t care what trump did anymore. We are way past that. We either have the rule of law or we don’t. It is clear now that the republicans and democrats in DC are above the law and they only use it as a tool to hold power.

If trump was a rapist like bill that would be a problem. If he took 145$ million dollars like Hillary that would be a problem.

If he got caught spying on political opponents like Obama that would be a problem.

You think you are clever. You are not.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 8:50 AM
Sure, go ahead and prosecute both Clintons as far as I am concerned.

Do you think that a Special Counsel should be assigned to investigate the Clintons and all their associates in the same manner that Trump and all his associates are being investigated by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller?

Matthew Sablan said...

"So, I am curious, short of a violent crime, what is a line that Trump would have to have stepped over for you to either support indictment or impeachment?"

-- Well, given that we know destroying evidence (Clinton), firing IGs (Obama), accepting illegal campaign donations (Obama), paying foreign agents to interfere in the election (Clinton, again), and lying to investigators (both) aren't enough to get an indictment or impeachment -- yeah. I think the last administration established just how serious a crime it needs to be to get indictment or impeachment.

And the bar? Obscenely high.

Inga said...

“Powerline is flailing today as well.”

I think they are shocked, they shouldnt have been though if they had been paying attention. I suspect they’ve all been thinking it’s been a big nothingburger until now. I knew this would happen when the truth started sinking in.

n.n said...

Avenatti is a trans-Allred.

n.n said...

If anything, a cheap suit fits poorly, and performs worse. Don't be a cheap suit.

roesch/voltaire said...

The question is will the bag man be left holding the bag? or will he pull a few card tricks from the bag before he folds his hand.

Inga said...

“Trump organizations apparently destroyed documents despite being warned not to. I wonder if they did it like with a cloth.”

And they had the nerve to call Hillary a criminal. We’ll see soon which organization are the bigger criminals.

Yancey Ward said...

Even if Trump used his own money to pay off Daniels by channeling it through Cohen, it isn't a crime- indeed, it is more likely that Daniels and her attorney are guilty of a crime in that case- for example, did they threaten to go public absent a payment- that is extortion. If a supporter of Trump paid Daniels off, I am doubtful it can be called a campaign contribution, though that is a matter for a judge and/or jury.

I think Mueller is deliberately trying to provoke Trump to fire him. I believe this because if Mueller actually had something on Trump, he would not have taken this gambit of raiding the lawyer- it creates too many 4th Amendment problems for an actual case against Trump himself.

To answer Robert Payne- tax evasion and money laundering would be sufficient for me, but I doubt Trump is guilty of either one- he has long had a legitimate business, and such a large and high profile one that he is surely audited in excruciating detail on a continual basis- one would have to be a complete fool in his situation to color outside the law in such matters. One of the reasons I say this is that the IRS has every single one of Trump's tax returns, and have leaked none of them. If the returns were damaging to Trump in any significant way, you surely would have seen them in the NYTimes before the election.

LilyBart said...

Robert Payne said...Sure, go ahead and prosecute both Clintons as far as I am concerned.

That doesn't mean anything now. It means nothing.

Mike Sylwester said...

robother at 9:05 AM
Trump has to fire Mueller now.

Trump should take two actions concurrently.

1) Terminate the Special Counsel investigation immediately.

2) Declassify and allow the public release of ALL the Special Counsel's documents.

Trump should have begun declassifying and releasing all relevant documents a year ago.

Achilles said...

“Just to be clear, I do not want him to go down for a "relatively" minor crime. It must be big enough for there to be no doubt about its seriousness for supporters as well.“

This is pure bullshit. You are a Stalinist.

Bill raped a woman and you still supported him.

Hillary deleted 33000 emails that had information pulled off a SIPRnet and you still supported her.

The problem is 40% of the country supports a party that is is explicitly destroying the rule of law. The problem is people like you who obviously support their lawlessness. Hillary and obama would never survive an investigation like this. The existence of the Stalinism of this investigation is enough.

gilbar said...

" would undermine Mueller's ethical position."

doesn't that presume some base level of ethics for Mueller?
Is there any evidence for that?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Strozk and Rosenstine must go. Sessions must go.

LilyBart said...

And the bar? Obscenely high.

No, silly, that's the bar for the Democrats. The bar for the Republics is much, much, lower.

Michael K said...

Invalid, the truth is the last thing you want. This is war and it could end badly for everyone.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Inga said...

We’ll see soon which organization are the bigger criminals.

Will we? How? Are they going to open an actual investigation-investigation on Hillary?

Michael K said...

That was Inga until autocorrect got hold of it

traditionalguy said...

Scott Adams is livid because he plays by the rules. This FBI criminal cabal's smash and grab of all of the records from the accused' s lawyer violates every known standard of legal ethics. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment of the other lawyer for representing a client, and effectively destroys the right to counsel.

The only response to that type of legal barbarity is to fight The same way. No quarter asked or given. Mueller must want Trump to play dirty. The last time an American President was placed in that position, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the result.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“Powerline is flailing today as well.”

“I think they are shocked, they shouldnt have been though if they had been paying attention. I suspect they’ve all been thinking it’s been a big nothingburger until now. I knew this would happen when the truth started sinking in.“


Only shocked by the brazenness of the stalinists in DC and the stupidity of people like you who think this is a good thing.

Inga said...

“Will we? How? Are they going to open an actual investigation-investigation on Hillary?”

They’ve already investigated the shit out of her, but sure investigate some more if it makes you folks feel better.

rehajm said...

So, I am curious, short of a violent crime, what is a line that Trump would have to have stepped over for you to either support indictment or impeachment?

With the introduction of the No Reasonable Prosecutor standard and the accompanying crimes that failed to meet it the bar is very high indeed.

George Spix said...

Can't see the forest for the trees. Every minute on this is one less minute for the progs to convince the voters that the tax cuts were a bad idea, because the billionaires are not crying, while your "rich" neighbor with two cars down the street had to take his children out of Ivy league schools because the $10K cap on SLT deduction made him like you again, not poor but definitely Not rich. So, T's tax reform taxes the rich more than the poor, promise kept and is not a gift to our oligarchs whose job generation, bonuses etc. create even more income for the levelers to spend, by not muzzling the cow that treads the corn. Not clear this can break thru the noise but it's game over once he shoots that arrow, in his own best persuasion style, bringing those ex-rich business owners who happen to be believe more in the nation than levelers up on the stage. And even some of the so called "rich" detailing how much more good they are doing for the nation and the needy than that demanded by the levelers who claim they're responsible for most improvements in our quality of life and those who would claim governments are smarter than they are redistributing and segregate us by class and grievance groups, which are cards they only get to play once so they can't play it again, it's old and tired, no outrage anymore. Ditto the deficit hawks. Where the voter would love to see us declare bankruptcy on the China trade issue. just like every other country we've rescued. More please. The largest mass wasting we've ever seen this year, even larger than Roosevelt's, keep it up suckers you’re playing right into his hands and he and his ladies laugh every night at what fools we are.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Yancey Ward said...

...it creates too many 4th Amendment problems for an actual case against Trump himself.

That is only a problem if the goal is conviction in a court of law. If the goal is impeachment, the House and Senate can use whatever evidence they want. No way the Supreme Court would overrule an impeachment vote based on a 4th Amendment violation.

Kevin said...

"I think when push comes to shove, he is going to fold like a cheap deck of cards.

So it's not about a crime, but what you can force someone to do by threatening them with the law.

Good to know the law isn't a system of rules, but a means to empower yourself against those you don't like.

This will not end well.

Kevin said...

I thought Trump would blow up the Republicans and the media and Democrats would implode as a result of him winning.

I didn't think they'd take the rule of law down with them.

I guess I underestimated their lust for power.

Inga said...

“Only shocked by the brazenness of the stalinists in DC and the stupidity of people like you who think this is a good thing.”

I’m not shocked that you folks still cling to your delusions. The guy, Geoffrey Berman, who signed he search warrant was a TRUMP appointee, someone Trump himself interviewed. Is he too a Stalinist, lol? Your extremism is going to be your undoing.

Inga said...

“I didn't think they'd take the rule of law down with them.”

The rule of law is what is saving this country at this point. Trump is subject to the rule of law, he is not above the law.

Brian said...

We have a situation of 2 movies here. Either:

1) The president is a criminal worse than the worst Mob boss and as such the normal rules of prosecutor behavior (such as maintaining right to counsel through Attorney-Client privilege) need to be thrown out the window.

Or,

2) Trump is innocent of anything other than beating Hillary in the election and there is a deep state so entrenched that normal rules no longer apply. The deep state is in control.

I caution people that the evidence on the ground doesn't disprove either of these theories. There is a lot of "smoke" for both theories.

But both can't be true. Under either theory this is a dangerous time for America. Politics has morphed from a contest of ideas and persuasion to a cold war winner take all.

The only thing that hasn't happened (yet) is people being killed. This needs to be de-escalated but yesterday's actions only added heat to the fire.

There better have been a good reason for raiding, instead of just issuing a subpoena. Something as simple as bank records does not cover it, since there are multiple copies of that, you know, like at the bank.

For all the talk about how republicans in the DOJ approved these actions, that doesn't prove either of the theories. In this hyperpartisan environment I can see a lot of people "going along" with a request because the political penalty for NOT doing something is high. Rosenstein would have been accused of covering for Trump, same for the judge, same for the US Attorney. It costs them nothing to say yes, and their name on CNN when it leaks that they said no.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“Will we? How? Are they going to open an actual investigation-investigation on Hillary?”

“They’ve already investigated the shit out of her, but sure investigate some more if it makes you folks feel better.“


The stalinist rejoices that the law does not apply to her masters.

Kevin said...

Things on Trump's plate this morning:

1. Mass illegal migration to the southern border.
2. Trade negotiation with China.
3. Denuclearization of North Korea.
4. Response to Syrian chemical weapons use.

5. Half the country trying to indict him for whatever they can drum up.

No recent president could begin to deal with half of that.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Inga said...

Trump is subject to the rule of law, he is not above the law.

Which is why all right-thinking people had to vote for Trump over Hillary.

Kevin said...

“They’ve already investigated the shit out of her, but sure investigate some more if it makes you folks feel better.“

You don't even have to put Hillary in jail. Just expose the actions and crimes of Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Rice and others.

Sentence them while Hillary walks around free. That's the real punishment for what happened.

That's what will put the rule of law back into the rule of law.

Inga said...

“Which is why all right-thinking people had to vote for Trump over Hillary.”

Poor judgment, it was evident way back then that he was probably a bigger criminal than Hillary.

Kevin said...

Trump is subject to the rule of law

If he's the only one, it's not the rule of law.

LilyBart said...

Trump is subject to the rule of law, he is not above the law.

We're objecting to the unevenness of the application of the law.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Inga said...

Poor judgment, it was evident way back then that he was probably a bigger criminal than Hillary.

But he was the only one of the two that was subject to the rule of law. So there is that.

Inga said...

You don't even have to put Hillary in jail. Just expose the actions and crimes of Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Rice and others.”

I suspect that you won’t see any crimes when the IG releases his report. This has been wishful thinking all along promoted by Trump himself, Nunes and Fox News. Time for you folks to wake up.

Mike said...

Aren't all suits "all over" the person who's wearing it?

No, a peculiarity of ill fitting suits is that they appear to shift and move and people are constantly adjusting -- pulling the sleeves down, smoothing the breast, shoulder rolling, etc. -- and that produces the "all over" part. So the saying, IMO, is meant to highlight the discomfort of the person, having someone bother him continuously, as a cheap suit* tends to pester the wearer.

*Of course even inexpensive suits today are cut better and are often fitted by tailors, making this somewhat of an anachronistic old fashioned idiom.

Scott said...

The proper expression is, "To fold like a cheap camera."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Scott Adams is livid because he plays by the rules."

-- I play by the rules too, and it pains me that doing so is often self-inflicting punishment while people who don't get all the benefits. And you can see that in how Trump and Clinton both advanced.

LilyBart said...

Poor judgment, it was evident way back then that he was probably a bigger criminal than Hillary.

And how would you know what kind of a criminal she is? You side, and I include the majority of the media, has been curiously incurious about her dealings. Any criticism of Hillary's choices was deemed "all political".

What a joke. A sick joke.

Rumpletweezer said...

Someone on TV the other day said, "You can't put the cat back in the box."

Kevin said...

I suspect that you won’t see any crimes when the IG releases his report.

The IG has already said McCabe committed the fireable offense of not telling the truth under oath.

That alone makes your statement false.

Vance said...

Again, the screaming from the left if they were being treated even a teeny tiny bit the way they fully approve of Trump and the little people are being destroyed... can you imagine?

For you leftists who claim to be concerned and wonder why Trump people aren't abandoning him: it's the double standard to the max.

You are going to impeach Trump over a porn star? Really? When you still worship Bill Clinton, the rapist? When Bob Menedez, child rapist, is still a highly praised US Senator? When you've spent the last 80 years telling us how sex is nothing and powerful men are supposed to have an affair? Well, guess what: Trump who was a Democrat at the time had an affair. Now you are trying to impeach him over it?


Let alone the open warfare you leftists have declared on the Constitution. There's not even a pretense anymore that you guys like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, and now we find out that you guys use Google, Facebook, and Twitter to neatly sidestep the 4th amendment. Right to counsel? Well, guess we all just found out you guys hate that too.

What's left of the Constitution you like and support? I know: The taxing power. That appears to be the only part you like--the ability to raise our taxes in a never, ever ending stream of "We must pay for studies by our relatives of the mating habits of the garter snake and also shovel your money as bribes to illegals so they will vote for us!"

But apparently this is what you leftists want: to be known as completely and totally anti-Constitution. Oh, I forgot: you like the made up Constitution, the parts you claim are there but would horrify the original writers. You know, the right to murder babies and the right to punish Christians and the right to force everyone to indulge your sexual perversions--rights the rest of us don't get.

It's amazing, isn't it? The left has a Humpty Dumpty approach to the Constitution: they decide what the words mean, and those definitions have no relation to reality.

"Freedom of speech" really means "Jail you for saying stuff we hate!" while "equal protection of the laws" really means "Gays are better than you and we'll punish you for not dancing to their every whim!" That's the current Constitution as interpreted by the left.

And now you are openly waging war on the right to counsel. And you are doing it to the President--what chance do us little people have of having the protections of the law?

Ultimately--if you bastards are doing this to Trump, what chance do the rest of us have? What protection of the law? What rights--if Trump cannot be safe from you predatory monsters, then no one is, are we?

And that's what you guys are doing: making it so none of us can trust that we will get the protection of the law. You people will just run roughshod over it to harass, intimidate and destroy.

And without the rule of law, then why should I obey it?

Answer me that, Robert Payne: if your side will not allow Trump the protection of the law, will I get it when I am on the target list? And will anyone else, because a whooooole lot of people watched your side abuse the law and harass people but it never, ever goes in reverse. If you people cannot even let the President have the protection of the law... then what's left of this country?

LilyBart said...

Someone on TV the other day said, "You can't put the cat back in the box."

Have you ever tried to put a cat in a box when they didn't want to be there?

Mike said...

the kind of folding a poker player does

Another inapt phrase from the weenie you quoted. Because when a poker player folds he does not reveal his cards. So this "fold" doesn't imply collapse and exposure the way the speaker (perhaps) intended, it implies shutting up and not talking or revealing info.

(I hope my suit post above answered Althouse's question.)

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 8:50 AM

Would Money Laundering be enough?

Tax Evasion?

Or would any financial crime not be a big enough deal?


How come your list does not include colluding with Russia to meddle in the US Presidential election?

Inga said...

“The IG has already said McCabe committed the fireable offense of not telling the truth under oath.

That alone makes your statement false.”

Did the IG refer McCabe to the DOJ for criminal charges? No I don’t believe he did.

Kevin said...

Have you ever tried to put a cat in a box when they didn't want to be there?

Every cat owner knows you just leave the box out and the cat will climb in.

Trying to force a cat in a box is just asking for it.

Michael said...

The expression is "fold like a $5 pup tent" or "like a pup tent in a hurricane."

Kevin said...

Did the IG refer McCabe to the DOJ for criminal charges? No I don’t believe he did.

If McCabe lied under oath why wouldn't he be referred for criminal charges in the final report?

Wouldn't that undermine your "no one is above the rule of law" argument you keep trying to make?

Vance said...

Oh, and Inga's "Hillary has been investigated!" Yeah, by Comey, and we already know that they made the decision before the investigation even started that she was innocent.

Gosh, predetermined clearance of her. How thorough of an investigation it must have been, right Inga? She was declared innocent and pardoned by the FBI before any evidence was brought in at all.

Double standard to the max from Inga, as normal.

LilyBart said...


Blogger Vance said...
Again, the screaming from the left if they were being treated even a teeny tiny bit the way they fully approve of Trump and the little people are being destroyed... can you imagine?


They don't have to scream because it wouldn't be allowed The media, the 'investigative' bodies of our government - they wouldn't stand for it - and we've already seen this in action.

They can yell that Trump is not above the law all they want. And, I would agree - he shouldn't be above the law. But the real problem here is that, for the most part, their side does appear to be above the law. This problem is a bigger problem than a president who might have paid off a prostitute to keep quiet about a relationship they had a few years ago. And don't tell me about "campaign finance laws" - those REALLY don't apply to democrats!

Achilles said...

“Rosenstein would have been accused of covering for Trump, same for the judge, same for the US Attorney. It costs them nothing to say yes, and their name on CNN when it leaks that they said no.“

Rosenstein is just as dirty as Mueller. He has been on team Stalin since the start.

All of this is public record.

“14. Notice something about these cases? None ever saw the light of day, where testimony would be made public. They were all 'disappeared'. Now with that in mind, consider the following bombshell facts:

15. ALL of these cases were prosecuted by the same duo, or combination thereof - Rod Rosenstein & Andrew Weissman. Yes, you read that correctly.“

Rosenstein has been covering for Clinton’s and Mueller for decades.

halojones-fan said...

"If we can bullseye that jackpot, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."

Kevin said...

Inga 1: No one is above the law, not even Trump!

Inga 2: Even though the IG went out of his way to make sure McCabe was fired for lying under oath so not to receive his pension, he won't ultimately refer him for criminal charges -- for lying under oath.

You can't have it both ways.

Achilles said...

“Did the IG refer McCabe to the DOJ for criminal charges? No I don’t believe he did.“

If you even had a room temperature IQ you would realize that this is exactly what we are saying and exactly what the problem with you people is.

Inga said...

“If McCabe lied under oath why wouldn't he be referred for criminal charges in the final report?”

If McCabe was fired because of something in the IG report, it stands to reason that criminal charges could’ve been brought BEFORE the IG report is finalized and published, if there had been a crime committed.

Browndog said...

Keep it in perspective. The only "crime" Trump committed was defeating Hillary in a Presidential election. What you see playing out is the "insurance policy".

Chuck said...

Scott Adams thinks that the execution of the search warrant (applied for through multiple levels of the Department of Justice, and presented to a federal judge) is a "firing offense" and Scott Adams doesn't care "if they followed all the rules." Scott Adams would "fire 'em all."

Scott Adams is out of his fucking mind. I think the guy needs to be kept on his high dosages of marijuana. Today, he seemed sober and wanted to start talking like a lawyer but he didn't know the first thing about the law and the more he talked, the more he knew that he had to revert to "I don't care." Which he did in about every fourth sentence.

An entire periscope of Scott Adams demanding the firing of "literally everybody" who had a hand in the warrant application (if Adams knew about warrant applications; he doesn't) and the execution of the warrant. And (of course) what Adams was preoccupied with, just as Trump would be, was the emotional reaction of his periscope audience, who he wanted to poll on the subject of whether "everybody should be fired."

Adams wanted to claim that he is a consistent thinker; that when Bill Clinton's personal affairs became the subject of an impeachment movement, he was offended.

I'm in the same boat, figuratively. I favored the application of the rule of law with Clinton and did not tolerate his perjury. I wouldn't tolerate it with Trump.

Scott Adams: "I no longer care about the fucking law..."

Gahrie said...

You fold like a cheap suit.

Snark said...

Avanetti is on CNN a lot, and comes off as a bit of a tool. I don't give much weight to anything he says.

That said, Trump is a deeply dishonest con man who has no doubt had to surround himself with other deeply dishonest, venal people to plug various holes over his lifetime. Michael Cohen embraced his role as fixer, and the two of them together have spun a stupid and not believable story about the payment to Stormy Daniels. The FBI is not going to just take them at their word, regardless of any "cooperation". If there was no fraud/crime, attorney-client privilege will be respected. If there was, the privilege doesn't stand. Makes sense to me.

Kevin said...

If McCabe was fired because of something in the IG report, it stands to reason that criminal charges could’ve been brought BEFORE the IG report is finalized and published, if there had been a crime committed.

There is no rush to charge him. I suspect before they did they would see what else he knew and what they'd like from him in a plea agreement.

These are points you'd be making if the parties are reversed.

LilyBart said...

Inga says.....They’ve already investigated the shit out of her....

This is a ridiculous statement.

Inga said...

“Scott Adams is out of his fucking mind.”

Scott Adams has always been a moron and those who believed any shit that came out of his mouth should be embarrased..

Inga said...

Lily Bart,

I also said go ahead and do another investigation, how many have there been now? What’s one more?

n.n said...

You can't have it both ways.

You can, if you're Pro-Choice. A faith, religion/moral philosophy, and tradition, that is everything, something, and nothing, concurrently. A neat trick, really.

Kevin said...

how many have there been now?

Zero.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"The only thing that hasn't happened (yet) is people being killed. This needs to be de-escalated but yesterday's actions only added heat to the fire."

I disagree. This is going to end in violence, and hopefully enough of it that the deep state and the lefty retards cheerleading their coup attempt do not attempt it again.

The Republican party is undefeated in American Civil wars.

traditionalguy said...

Interestingly, DaTrumpster has won over most of the fighting lawyers to his side by this legal atrocity done to Cohen. He had already won over most of the Generals and Admirals and all of the non-coms who do the fighting.

The War with the Deep State is effectively over. No quarter/no deals. Enjoy the Caribbean.

Gahrie said...

Keep it in perspective. The only "crime" Trump committed was defeating Hillary in a Presidential election

Well some people are pissed that he beat Jeb and the GOP Establishment also.

Gahrie said...

Scott Adams has always been a moron and those who believed any shit that came out of his mouth should be embarrased..

You mean like "Trump is going to beat Hillary"?

Inga said...

“Zero.”

“The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for months, reviving a probe that was dialed back during the 2016 campaign amid tensions between Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents about the politically charged case, according to people familiar with the matter.

The inquiry resumed about a year ago. Agents are now trying to determine if any donations made to the foundation were linked to official acts when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, these people said. The people did not identify what specific donations or interactions agents are scrutinizing.

Word of the investigation comes at a particularly fraught time for the Justice Department and FBI, as it tries to navigate several polarizing issues, including an ongoing special-counsel probe of President Trump and his associates, as well as demands from Republicans in Congress that Clinton be reinvestigated on a host of issues. Among those is the foundation case.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fbi-is-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/2018/01/05/1aca0d4a-f1cf-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.be809483a678

Inga said...

“You mean like "Trump is going to beat Hillary"?”

Michael Moore said the same thing...

Gahrie said...

Someone on TV the other day said, "You can't put the cat back in the box."

The expression is "You can't put the cat back in the bag."

The cat was a cat o'nine tails...a type of whip used on naval ships. When the cat was taken out of the bag, it was too late to fix things and someone was going to get a beating.

Gahrie said...

Michael Moore said the same thing...

So you think Michael Moore is a moron?

Might be the first time we've ever agreed.

LilyBart said...

Inga, they weren't remotely interested in taking a good look at Hillary when it mattered. And that is the important part. Not the government - not the media. But I suspect, that, like they did before, they'll find only ways to acquit her of any wrongdoing. They'll parse the laws, they'll parse the words, but they'll find everything was ticketyboo with the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation.

JPS said...

Browndog, 9:48:

"The only "crime" Trump committed was defeating Hillary in a Presidential election."

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if he's committed others. To supporters these will be picayune, irrelevant. To his antagonists, they will be a mortal threat to the Republic unless he is removed forthwith.

"What you see playing out is the 'insurance policy'."

Absolutely!

LilyBart said...



Mueller is now investigating a 6-figure sum made to the Trump org by Victor Pinchuk during the campaign. Pinchuk also donated millions to Clinton Foundation & met with HRC while he dumped steel.

Double Standards. Uneven application of law.

Vance said...

Oh, yes, Inga: the FBI investigation where they decided in advance that Hillary was never, ever, never in a trillion years ever going to be guilty of even a parking ticket? By Decree of the head of the FBI himself, James Comey.

A sham investigation, in other words.

Face it: the FBI has destroyed its reputation. I wouldn't believe them if they showed video of Mike Lee selling cocaine to Russian spies; because they lie. They are nothing more than an arm of the DNC and have an allergic reaction to being in the same room as the truth.

Who trusts them to be honest and competent? Look at their priorities: Letting Islamic terrorists off the hook and trying to spend all their time investigating Republicans while simultaneously saying that Democrats are above the law because "they didn't have intent to commit this black letter crime so we will drop it!"

But hey, you don't care, do you? The FBI as a DNC partisan witch hunt agency is just what you love! Democrats get away with murder, literally, and your side cheers, while demanding impeachment for parking tickets.

Now your side just seized the entire office of an attorney and are saying "Well, we'll just rummage through everything here until we can find something to leak and try to impeach with! No worries, we'll totally be fair to Trump! Trust us!"

Really?

Alan Dershowitz put it best: exactly what are attorneys supposed to promise their clients now? "Sorry dude, all the Feds have to do is get a search warrant and they can ransack all my files to their hearts content now. So what was your problem again?"

Matthew Sablan said...

"Did the IG refer McCabe to the DOJ for criminal charges? No I don’t believe he did."

-- I mean, we haven't seen Clinton, Podesta or Abedin referred for perjury either. Just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean no crime was committed.

poker1one said...

Achilles, the link is broken.

Snark said...

Y'all need to stop volunteering to be conned by Donald Trump and misled by Sean Hannity. Seriously. You've whipped yourself up into thinking that the FBI and LE are raging leftists. So absurd. They're honey badgers, and they don't give a shit. They're going to dig until they're done digging. When they're done, maybe Trump is in trouble and maybe he isn't.

Chuck said...

Vance said...
...
...
A sham investigation, in other words.


A sham. A sham of a travesty. A travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

Matthew Sablan said...

"They're honey badgers, and they don't give a shit. They're going to dig until they're done digging."

-- Except when the learn the President of the United States illegally shared information on a secret server using a pseudonym, demonstrating clear intent to avoid government regulations. Then... they don't care.

Chuck said...

President-Mom-Jeans said...
"The only thing that hasn't happened (yet) is people being killed. This needs to be de-escalated but yesterday's actions only added heat to the fire."

I disagree. This is going to end in violence, and hopefully enough of it that the deep state and the lefty retards cheerleading their coup attempt do not attempt it again.

The Republican party is undefeated in American Civil wars.


Hey that's what I was going to say!

Henry said...

"Fold like a cheap deck of cards"

Michael Avenatti has been reading too much Joe Palooka.

Stink like a mackerel.

Tear like the Brooklyn phonebook.

Crush like a pork pie hat.

It's all Coney Island all the time now.

Robert Payne said...

Vance, Achilles et al:

The mistake you make is assuming you know the "side' of other commentators. I share many of your concerns. I just think you have hitched yourself to the wrong horse. Think about how every time someone makes a political counter-argument, you throw up Bill, Hilary, Teddy or Barack as a way to discredit them. Prepare to have the shoe on the other foot going forward.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I forgot to add Lifelong Bowe Berghdahl Republican's to the list.

Thanks for the reminder, cuck.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Think about how every time someone makes a political counter-argument, you throw up Bill, Hilary, Teddy or Barack as a way to discredit them. Prepare to have the shoe on the other foot going forward."

-- They called Mitt Romney a Nazi. It isn't like the left wasn't going to use the politics of personal destruction no matter who was nominated. So, Trump makes it a bit easier? Who cares? Palin was not a real woman, and Condoleza Rice was called unprintable things. The left is going to smear *whoever the right elects*, so, using as an argument that the left might use dirtier names because Trump got elected is... not persuasive.

Snark said...

"-- Except when the learn the President of the United States illegally shared information on a secret server using a pseudonym, demonstrating clear intent to avoid government regulations. Then... they don't care."

Whataboutism is tired and boring and beyond ineffective as an argument at this point. The only people you're impressing with it is each other. Focus on facts you have in front of you about Trump, not the ones that may or may not exist in the past. Many in power are highly motivated to have Hillary et al looked at more closely, and whether that happens or not after moves in that direction, the currently pertinent concerns about Trump remain the same.

Achilles said...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/fbi-probe-russian-uranium-bribes-concealed-obama-doj-mueller-mccabe-rosenstein

Blogger and my phone are teaming up to screw with links.

Copy and paste that and you will see what side Rosenstein is really on. He is no “republican.”

He is on team Stalin.

Matthew Sablan said...

Like: I don't like Trump. But we got Trump because the left destroyed anyone the right put forward. My God: Christine O'Donnell was literally called a witch, and the left ran with it! Palin was unsexed by them. People said Paul Ryan wanted to throw grandma off a cliff. My attempts at diplomacy and meeting in the middle failed, and I warned the left that if they pushed, there were people on the right who'd give up and fight dirty right back.

Matthew Sablan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gk1 said...

If Trump does anything intemperate in his response to this over reach I hope he simply releases all of the FBI & DOJ files on this whole sorry russian affair. As chief executive he can do that this afternoon. What is the downside for him at this point? Horowitz and Wray will resign? People saying he is only doing that to distract from the fact he paid off a hooker to keep her mouth shut? Do it Mr.President!

Matthew Sablan said...

"Whataboutism is tired and boring and beyond ineffective as an argument at this point. The only people you're impressing with it is each other."

-- It isn't whataboutism. You said the FBI were "honey badgers" who "Didn't give up." This was a clear example that, you're wrong. The FBI has demonstrated a willingness to not not give up. To not honey badger. To not pursue.

Achilles said...

“Scott Adams: "I no longer care about the fucking law..."”

Sorry Chuck. You guys have ruined it for everyone.

We don’t want to live in a country where the law is selectively applied to our political enemies even if it is our political enemies getting shafted. Nobody really cares about Hillary or Obama’s obvious corruption or about Trump. Trump is just the current target.

We are just going to skip the part where we persecute our enemies with the government.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Some people are abusing the term "whataboutism." It is not "whataboutism" to complain about unequal treatment under the law.
The classic example of "whataboutism" goes back at least as far as a cold war joke. An American visitor is taken by his minder to see the Moscow subway. The American notes that the trains are running late. His Soviet minder angrily says "What about your lynchings in the South!"
See, the late trains are completely unrelated to American lynchings.
Complaining that the same FBI that gave Hillary a pass now seems Hell bent on persecuting politicians with "R" after their name is not "whataboutism." It is simply pointing out that the FBI is acting in a partisan fashion, something that should concern all Americans.

MikeR said...

I see that Dershowitz has attacked this one as well. Just investigate till you find a crime. Oh, it's not about Russian collusion - pass it on to someone else.
It's all okay if it's against your enemies.

Matthew Sablan said...

For as petty as Trump is, at least he isn't turning all these novel legal theories immediately against his opponents, like having Facebook or Perkins Coie (or whatever) raided given Facebook has admitted to illegal contributions to Obama, and Clinton used the law firm as an illegal pass through to pay foreign nationals to interfere with the election. Those are significantly more "crime-y" sounding than paying off someone to be quiet -- since both Bill Clinton and Edwards did that without suffering the same legal maneuvering as Trump is now.

glenn said...

So a guy with a JD can’t even get a cliche right? Find out where he went to school and avoid that place like the plague.

Achilles said...

Snark said...

“Whataboutism is tired and boring and beyond ineffective as an argument at this point. The only people you're impressing with it is each other.”


You are totally right. We are way past whattaboutism. We have been for a long time.

It just took an action like raiding a personal lawyer with a team of jackboots on political grounds to wake up republican voters. It happened in Wisconsin but that didn’t get national coverage. The democrat media are going to spread this story far and wide thinking this will do what they want.

You all are going to look back at this and have the sads.

I actually want to thank Mueller for putting this all out in the open. We can get on with the indictments and removal of this cancer on the body politic now.

This also ensured that Trump will not give any quarter.

Snark said...

"-- It isn't whataboutism. You said the FBI were "honey badgers" who "Didn't give up." This was a clear example that, you're wrong. The FBI has demonstrated a willingness to not give up. To not honey badger. To not pursue."

That's the very definition of whataboutism.

They're not investigating me either. Perhaps they didn't further investigate Hillary etc. for the same reason. You've convinced yourselves that it is a dead certainty that they didn't simply decline because preliminary work suggested it wasn't necessary. For Christsake, Comey probably doomed her personally with his choices in 2016. The FBI isn't in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

The investigation before the world right now involves Trump. If you don't focus on that, how can you expect to make any sense of the world as it is right now? Not being clear eyed about what is happening right now in front of you is what makes people vulnerable to the nonsense of Sean Hannity et al.

Vance said...

You want to know one difference between me and Chuck? Only one of us voted for Donald Trump. And it wasn't me.

I don't particularly care for Trump as a person; most of those who defend Trump don't actually like the guy.

The main thing that drives his defense is the utter, blatant, in your face hypocrisy and sheer unmitigated gall of the left to overturn an election. Oh, Donald Trump is literally Hitler, Satan and so forth.... but Hillary was a saint. Really? This blind "only racist/sexist/bigots could ever possibly support anything Trump does!" Well, the same was said about Romney, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, and Reagan. Probably before that, too. Heck, I think the left called Eisenhower a Nazi. After he refused to run as a Democrat, of course.

I'd trade Trump for Pence in a heartbeat, if I thought Pence would stand up to the howling mobs of the left trying to destroy America. But his capitulations on Memories Pizza makes that a concern.

Trump fights. I wish we had a better fighter, but no one else has stepped up to the plate, have they? Montgomery was a far nicer guy than Patton, who definitely had a lot of rough edges. But Patton won, because he fought. We couldn't spare him.

To continue with the WWII analogy: Hitler had some incredible generals. But they weren't politically correct enough for him, so Guderian, Rommel, Von Manstein, Von Rundstedt--all were not fighting at the end of the war. Instead you had Model and Steiner. And Jodl. Who would you rather have--Jodl or Rommel?

The left is brazenly hypocritical. Hillary did things that should have in jail for millennia, and everyone knows it. The left openly proclaims that some people are better than others and have more rights--they are "protected classes" and conveniently, every one of those protected classes are Democrat constituencies. There's no "protected class" that votes Republican, is there? And when one of those protected classes does vote Republican, they sure lose all that protection.

And then their "How dare you vote for Trump! Or support him! He's a bad person! you should instead support our people who are ten times worse and if you don't, you aren't a Christian!" How insulting, condescending and stupid do they think we are? Of course, they think we are stupid. We are the deplorables after all. These people on the left want to enslave America and I'm supposed to feel bad because they tell me I should feel bad?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

For as petty as Trump is, at least he isn't turning all these novel legal theories immediately against his opponents, like having Facebook or Perkins Coie (or whatever) raided given Facebook has admitted to illegal contributions to Obama, and Clinton used the law firm as an illegal pass through to pay foreign nationals to interfere with the election. Those are significantly more "crime-y" sounding than paying off someone to be quiet -- since both Bill Clinton and Edwards did that without suffering the same legal maneuvering as Trump is now.

Worth a repeat.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The deep state and the Corruptocrat mob machine is alive and well.

Install Hillary now!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

@ Matthew

- I mean, we haven't seen Clinton, Podesta or Abedin referred for perjury either. Just because someone isn't charged doesn't mean no crime was committed.


Criminal charges should be made. Sessions must be replaced.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The US attorney behind Michael Cohen raid was appointed by Trump, gave $5400 to the President and was the law partner of Donald's pal Rudy Giuliani

Some fucking deep state for you.

Inga said...

“... overturn an election.”

That is THE delusion, via Trump himself, Nunes and Fox News and rightist outlets. Wake up people.

Vance said...

Snark wants us to operate in a vacuum, where we totally ignore the massive one-sidedness of the FBI. It's not at all whataboutism to ask why the FBI ignores Democrats and persecutes Republicans.

Heck, the FBI is openly letting Islamic terrorists off the hook all over the place because apparently the only thing they are focused on is getting Republicans. They lie, they make stuff up... all to get Republicans.

General Flynn was railroaded, merely because he decided to work for Trump. You defend that, naturally. Hey, the FBI lying and making up and entrapping people for political purposes? You are cool as long as it's Republicans!

Seth Rich died, but the FBI doesn't care. Hillary Clinton destroyed our national security, but the FBI wouldn't dream of prosecuting her. General Flynn as part of his new job talked to a foreigner and the FBI bankrupts him?

The FBI decides to destroy the right to counsel just to go on a fishing expedition against Trump, and you are "Why not, right? No one needs an attorney anyway!" But the DNC's supposedly hacked by Russian servers are off limits and the FBI doesn't care.

It's blatant, in your face partisanship.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Jonah Goldberg said ...
When I hear people talk about Michael Cohen as “the president’s lawyer” in reverential tones, I tend to chuckle. He is the president’s lawyer. But the president has many lawyers. What distinguishes Cohen from the pack is that he’s also a goon and an enforcer. He describes himself as a “Fixer.

Cohen actually embraces the comparison to Tom Hagen, Robert Duval’s character in The Godfather.

Hagen is a really great movie character. But just to be very clear: He’s also a criminal.

Cohen is not a legal scholar. He is not on the payroll to explain separation of powers or unitary executive theory or to even litigate in court. In short: He’s a bagman. He goes around and pays off porn stars. When you hear all of this “OMG! They searched Trump’s lawyer’s office!” talk, replace “lawyer” with “bagman.” It helps to put this in perspective.

(I should also say I am very much open to correction from Andy McCarthy, David French, and the other legal beagles, because I am not a lawyer. Then again, I can see my reflection in a mirror.)"

Lewis Wetzel said...

From the article ARM helpfully linked: "He [Berman] launched his investigation into Cohen after receiving information that special prosecutor Robert Mueller came across during his investigation."
No Mueller, no investigation.

Inga said...

Speaking of corruption...


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/trump-organization-asks-panama-president-for-help-with-hotel.html

“Trump Organization to Panama’s President: Help Us, or Face ‘Repercussions’“

“One might think that with dozens of scandals swirling around President Trump, his business would be very careful not to do anything that could be construed as inappropriate. But hey, what’s the point of working for the president if you can’t use his position to sway business dealings in your favor?

That appears to be the thinking behind a letter Trump Organization attorneys sent to Panamanian president Juan Carlos Varela last month, warning that there could be “repercussions” for Panama’s reputation if he declined to intervene in a dispute involving the Trump International Hotel in Panama City — though that would involve violating the nation’s separation of powers by having Varela meddle with the judicial branch.“

Lewis Wetzel said...

ARM, Goldberg is a #NeverTrumper.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
No Mueller, no investigation.


No empty-headed bagman, no investigation.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
Goldberg is a #NeverTrumper.


Just once, just once, could someone address the argument and not the man?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Inga, the best response to an NYMag article alleging Trump corruption is a National Review article alleging Hillary corruption: The Securities and Exchange Commission charged former Clinton Foundation trustee Vinod Gupta with fraud in 2008. He misallocated $9.5 million from InfoUSA, the database company he chaired, in order to finance credit-card bills, a yacht, personal trips to Cancun and South Africa, and 20 cars. He and the SEC settled for $7.3 million. Meanwhile, InfoUSA’s shareholders sued Gupta for flying the Clintons in the company jet and paying Bill $3 million in corporate cash for consulting. InfoUSA settled with stockowners for $13 million.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/clinton-foundation-reeks-crooks-thieves-and-hoods-deroy-murdock/

Inga said...

“Inga, the best response to an NYMag article alleging Trump corruption is a National Review article alleging Hillary corruption: The Securities and Exchange Commission charged former Clinton Foundation trustee Vinod Gupta with fraud in 2008. He misallocated $9.5 million from InfoUSA, the database company he chaired, in order to finance credit-card bills, a yacht, personal trips to Cancun and South Africa, and 20 cars. He and the SEC settled for $7.3 million. Meanwhile, InfoUSA’s shareholders sued Gupta for flying the Clintons in the company jet and paying Bill $3 million in corporate cash for consulting. InfoUSA settled with stockowners for $13 million.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/clinton-foundation-reeks-crooks-thieves-and-hoods-deroy-murdock”

Yawn. More whataboutism.

Lewis Wetzel said...


"Just once, just once, could someone address the argument and not the man?"
You are arguing that Goldberg is a reliable source on the character of Trump's lawyer. I am addressing your argument, ARM.

Snark said...

“Snark wants us to operate in a vacuum, where we totally ignore the massive one-sidedness of the FBI. It's not at all whataboutism to ask why the FBI ignores Democrats and persecutes Republicans. “

You can wank each off about it all day long if you like. Just please consider ceasing boring people to death by presenting it as any kind of a coherent, relevant argument against whatever the facts are about the current President and hs associates, right now, today. If all you got is what about this, what about that, what you got is nothing. Most people connected to the present moment can’t be arsed dealing with such a weak and lazy argument any more.

Vance said...

Fine, Snark. You apparently are happy with a state of affairs where we could have this press conference: "We here at the FBI are very, very concerned with this lawless administration. That's why we've put over 2000 agents on this case to see if Trump parked illegally once in Fargo, ND back in 1994. We've had very reliable sources saying that he did, and that's of course a critical, critical crime that must be stomped out and Trump impeached! We know everyone in America shares our determination to make sure the rule of law prevails. Questions? Yes, you from the Federalist? What about last week when Hillary, Obama, and Chuck Schumer raped, murdered, and ate a girl Aztec style on the front lawn of the FBI building in broad daylight live on CNN? Well, we sent Joe the janitor to clean up after it. We are sure that everyone knows that that was a full investigation and since they had no actual intent, it's all clear. Nothing to worry about. We prefer to focus on the important crimes, which is whether Trump got a speeding ticket in the 1980's. We've heard about that one too and we promise you: we will get him for that one.

Let us assure you that the FBI is totally not biased and we take reports of all crimes seriously. Just remember that Democrats don't commit crimes--only Republicans do."

That's Snark's world as he wants it to be. Inga too.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Just please consider ceasing boring people to death by presenting it as any kind of a coherent, relevant argument against whatever the facts are about the current President and hs associates . . ."
Whatever the Current Occupant has or has not done is insignificant if we have a nation where the secret police can selectively overturn the results of an election.
Your comment would be better written "Stop talking about corruption in the FBI! Whatabout Trump's corruption?"

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Yawn. Expecting leftwing diehards to care about Clinton corruption is a laugh. Never gonna happen.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
I am addressing your argument


No, you are attempting to be just another bagman for Trump. If Cohen really is functioning as a lawyer rather than a bagman, provide some evidence. There is plenty of evidence for his role as bagman.

Browndog said...

From the article ARM helpfully linked: "He [Berman] launched his investigation into Cohen after receiving information that special prosecutor Robert Mueller came across during his investigation."

Now reported that the Trump appointee (Berman) had nothing to do with the so called investigation or the warrant. Rod Rosentein made Berman recuse himself before any of this went down.

The idea that "this was so bad, even a Trump appointed prosecutor signed off on the search warrant" is fake news.

walter said...

Achilles said...t just took an action like raiding a personal lawyer with a team of jackboots on political grounds to wake up republican voters. It happened in Wisconsin but that didn’t get national coverage.
--
And "Aggressively Normal" Walker chose not to discuss it.

Maybe they will separate Cohen's records into "opposition research" bins too.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The man is mixing his metaphors to be sure. I get the alleged campaign finance violation of making the Stormy Daniels payoff with personal funds, although it seems rather specious. But where’s the bank fraud? Did Michael Cohen provide a fraudulent reason to his bank when he took out the home equity loan to pay off Stormy Daniels? Did he misstate the value of his house?

Snark said...

“Yawn. Expecting leftwing diehards to care about Clinton corruption is a laugh. Never gonna happen.“

Of course people care about potential past corruption. But there is no rational or honest argument that it should somehow obscure the present moment. That’s what people use if for, and it’s just so fucking tiresome.

Gahrie said...

You can wank each off about it all day long if you like. Just please consider ceasing boring people to death by presenting it as any kind of a coherent, relevant argument against whatever the facts are about the current President and hs associates, right now, today. If all you got is what about this, what about that, what you got is nothing

Yet more proof that history begins anew every morning for the Left.

Achilles said...

“Of course people care about potential past corruption. But there is no rational or honest argument that it should somehow obscure the present moment. That’s what people use if for, and it’s just so fucking tiresome.“

Your stalinist bullshit is tiresome.

Bay Area Guy said...

Dershowitz is one of the few principled folks on the Left. He understands this for what it is -- another in a series of attempts to undo the 2016 election results.

The Dems are very good at lawfare. Not so good at helping folks earn money in the private sector or winning elections, but that's a separate issue.

The Full Court press will continue until the Mid-terms. And, then, voila' we'll be in full, unending presidential campaign mode.

Gotta have thick skin in this political day and age.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

So two Trump guys, Sessions and Berman, both recuse themselves rather than get themselves tainted by association with Trump's legal problems. Given that these guys presumably have some inside knowledge on how Trump operates doesn't this function as a red flag for anyone?

Snark said...

“Your stalinist bullshit is tiresome.“

Maybe you can take me out when it all turns violent. You know, because of the lefty FBI and the deep state and their jackboots and stuff.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Simile.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Given that these guys presumably have some inside knowledge on how Trump operates doesn't this function as a red flag for anyone?"

-- No. That's not how recusing yourself works.

Matthew Sablan said...

I guess, I take it as no more "incriminating" than someone refusing to speak to the police.

Achilles said...

Robert Payne said...
Vance, Achilles et al:

“The mistake you make is assuming you know the "side' of other commentators. I share many of your concerns. I just think you have hitched yourself to the wrong horse.“

There is no other horse. Name one time a democrat has lost an election for president in the last 50 years where the leftists have not challenged them and undermined the will of the voters. They never peacefully transfer power when they lose.

They do not respect the republic and they hate the constitution. They are open and honest about repealing both the first and second amendments.

They are investigating trump until they find a crime. They are stalinists. My kids will not grow up in a country run by people as amoral as ARM, Inga, snark Comey, McCabe, Obama et al.

Murph said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
The US attorney behind Michael Cohen raid was appointed by Trump, gave $5400 to the President and was the law partner of Donald's pal Rudy Giuliani

Some fucking deep state for you.


See Brian's comment, above:
"For all the talk about how republicans in the DOJ approved these actions, that doesn't prove either of the theories. In this hyperpartisan environment I can see a lot of people "going along" with a request because the political penalty for NOT doing something is high. Rosenstein would have been accused of covering for Trump, same for the judge, same for the US Attorney. It costs them nothing to say yes, and their name on CNN when it leaks that they said no."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

...even something as stupid and trivial as a long ago ham-handled porn-star payoff can result in big trouble for a President. This is obviously true. A wrong doing, no matter how small, can spell the end for a politician with salivating prosecutors circling. But drops of truth in an ocean of deceit and corruption tend to get lost in the bigger truth: the system that allows for this kind of destruction and ignores the toxic system creates a populace who lose faith in the institutions that ostensibly seek truth. When the institutions are compromised, their elevating a small truth to cover for their big lies fail.

Trump voters and even fair-minded middle-of-the-roaders consider the crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and wonder at the double standard. She and her team smashed phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed. Oops. Hillary Clinton and her chief minion Cheryl Mills claimed attorney-client privilege when Mills, herself, was under investigation for obstruction. Did Hillary answer any of the FBI’s questions? We don’t know as they didn’t record the session. Oops. And then, classified emails showed up on Hillary’s assistant’s husband’s computer who is in prison for pornographic interaction with a minor online. Has the Clinton Foundation or Huma Abedin’s home or Hillary’s bathroom been no-knock raided yet?

No.


Ignorance is Bliss said...

Snark said...

Just please consider ceasing boring people to death by presenting it as any kind of a coherent, relevant argument against whatever the facts are about the current President and hs associates, right now, today.

The professor posted something about what the FBI did right now, today. Not about what Trump or his associates did today or at some point in the past. So people are making a coherent, relevant argument about what the FBI did today, and comparing it to how they behaved in the past.

If you are bored, there are other threads, and other blogs.

EDH said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Jonah Goldberg said ...
When I hear people talk about Michael Cohen as “the president’s lawyer” in reverential tones, I tend to chuckle. He is the president’s lawyer. But the president has many lawyers. What distinguishes Cohen from the pack is that he’s also a goon and an enforcer. He describes himself as a “Fixer. Cohen actually embraces the comparison to Tom Hagen, Robert Duval’s character in The Godfather.
Hagen is a really great movie character. But just to be very clear: He’s also a criminal.


And so how many actual Mob lawyers can you name that had their offices raided by the FBI?

Gk1 said...

When trump was elected I thought "So, I guess our country has now gone onto its post-presidential phase of its democracy" Little did I know how far off the beaten path we would get so quickly. So lefties, do you really think this will never happen to your party if you manage to pull of this soft coup? What's left of our institutions after you succeed in running off trump? Its all fun and games until someone gets hurt.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

When does Mueller install Hillary?

Big Mike said...

Of course people care about potential past corruption. But there is no rational or honest argument that it should somehow obscure the present moment.

And that’s where you’re wrong. When people see prominent Democrats skate on very serious crimes, then see the FBI raiding the files of Donald Trump’s lawyer, the “optics” could not be worse. If the Democrats has the brains God gave a lizard they’d have put the Clintons on trial and sent them (and McCabe and Comey and Holder and Lynch) off to jail, and only then turned their attention to the peccadillos of Trump. As it is, the case for a two tier system of justice is a slam dunk.

But if Democrats had brains they’d be Republicans.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Lewis Wetzel said...
I am addressing your argument

“No, you are attempting to be just another bagman for Trump. If Cohen really is functioning as a lawyer rather than a bagman, provide some evidence. There is plenty of evidence for his role as bagman.“


Innocent until proven guilty was one of those quaint notions. Kinda like the 4th amendment.

After all this time now ARM cares about bagmen. The law is always so convenient for stalinists. It appears just when they need it!

Lewis Wetzel said...

ARM wrote: "There is plenty of evidence for his role as bagman."
Maybe there is, but Goldberg's opinion isn't evidence of anything. Has he met Cohen? Had dealings with him? Goldberg can claim some special expertise regarding the Clintons, not Trump, and not Trump's lawyer.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

When the left succeeds, through the corruption of all government institutions, in overthrowing the will of the people and establishing one-party rule in perpetuum, then the real #Resistance will begin. They think they've got #Resistance now. They haven't seen fucking #Resistance.

Snark said...

"The professor posted something about what the FBI did right now, today. Not about what Trump or his associates did today or at some point in the past. So people are making a coherent, relevant argument about what the FBI did today, and comparing it to how they behaved in the past.

If you are bored, there are other threads, and other blogs."

Althouse posted about the use of language actually. I am bored with shitty arguments, that's for sure, but it would be a lot more work for me to acclimate to some other another blog than it would be for intelligent people to stop making shitty arguments and start making ones pertinent to the facts of the investigation in front of them.

Achilles said...

Snark said...
“Your stalinist bullshit is tiresome.“

“Maybe you can take me out when it all turns violent. You know, because of the lefty FBI and the deep state and their jackboots and stuff.“


We are going to live in a country where the rule of law is applied evenly to all and is not used merely as a tool to keep democrats in power.

It is your choice how we get there. But we will get there.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

EDH said...
And so how many actual Mob lawyers can you name that had their offices raided by the FBI?


It is helpful that you are only arguing about my knowledge of this topic rather than denying that it happens.

Snark said...

"And that’s where you’re wrong. When people see prominent Democrats skate on very serious crimes, then see the FBI raiding the files of Donald Trump’s lawyer, the “optics” could not be worse. If the Democrats has the brains God gave a lizard they’d have put the Clintons on trial and sent them (and McCabe and Comey and Holder and Lynch) off to jail, and only then turned their attention to the peccadillos of Trump. As it is, the case for a two tier system of justice is a slam dunk."

Okay, well you go ahead and fret over the optics. But maybe don't be too startled when the FBI and the SDNY concern themselves with the actual law, in the investigation before them, today.

Nonapod said...

the system that allows for this kind of destruction and ignores the toxic system creates a populace who lose faith in the institutions that ostensibly seek truth. When the institutions are compromised, their elevating a small truth to cover for their big lies fail.

This is the real danger. In their raging fervor to get Trump at any and all costs, the the Deep State and the anti-Trump crowd are blind to the wild destruction they're causing. They seem to be incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. They can't see how incredibly dangerous it is to burn all the remaining trust that most Americans have the various institutions that make up the Republic. Trust in organizations like the Justice Department and the FBI is already terrifyingly low among the Trump supporting crowd. And even among more traditional conservatives, who have always been known as very supportive of law and order, trust in those institutions is at an all time low.

If you're going to unseat a president, you better damn well have most of the American people on your side, or you're asking for chaos.

rhhardin said...

Trump is angrier than he's ever been. The mood in the White House is dark. Advisors are worried Trump is out of control.

Latest radio news.

Mike Sylwester said...

Robert Payne at 10:14 AM
I just think you have hitched yourself to the wrong horse.

To which horse did you hitch yourself during the 2016 election?

Darrell said...

Trump should issue an executive order today, compelling the FBI to videotape all interviews. Enough of the banana republic stuff with agents and their written notes. That only works if you can trust the cocksuckers. They've proven otherwise. I can't believe that all their convictions aren't being challenged.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 336   Newer› Newest»