Because nobody knows the Weinsteins, nobody spent years pinning their hopes on them (and are now reluctant to sabotage their own interests to do the right thing) and the Weinsteins didn't spend the last 40 years explaining to anyone who'd listen how awesome they are. The Weinsteins don't have any cheerleaders.
Not sure how cheeky your tongue is being here.
The Weinsteins (and only one of them is accused of being a sexual predator) are giants in their industry. They have accomplished legitimately great things, along with—like Trump—taking credit for other people's great things. They were gatekeepers to a career in show business. They could say "You'll never work in this town again" and make it stick.
Nobody was looking to either of them as the next president, but a lot of people were looking to them to write the check to finance the campaign of the next president.
The biggest difference is that in the movie business image matters. If you look sleazy enough people can walk away from you. It's not like you can stop paying taxes or start ignoring the executive branch of the federal government.
Trump's misdeeds (as long as they could be kept rumors with settlements and non-disclosure agreements) were probably more of an asset than a liability in his career as a reality TV star and glitzy real estate mogul, part of his bad boy image. If they had bubbled to the surface the way Harvey Weinstein's have—an expose of a criminal investigation—back when he was just an annoying basic cable presence his brand would have been tarnished enough that he would have dropped from sight.
Once he's a political player his image handlers can credibly claim that the allegations against him are partisan bias in the press, because we have a partisan press that isn't above hyping up a fake scandal.
That playbook is well-rehearsed, and it worked for Bill Clinton.
Because nobody knows the Weinsteins, nobody spent years pinning their hopes on them (and are now reluctant to sabotage their own interests to do the right thing) and the Weinsteins didn't spend the last 40 years explaining to anyone who'd listen how awesome they are. The Weinsteins don't have any cheerleaders.
Many Americans despise President Trump and anyone associated with him. Yet turning our system of justice into a political weapon is a danger we must guard against.
Think back to April 1, 1940, and a world awash in turmoil, hate and fear. Revered Attorney General Robert H. Jackson assembled the United States attorneys. In remarks enshrined in the hearts of all good prosecutors, he said, “The citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
Yet Mueller tapped a different sort of prosecutor to lead his investigation — his long-time friend and former counsel, Andrew Weissmann. He is not just a “tough” prosecutor. Time after time, courts have reversed Weissmann’s most touted “victories” for his tactics. This is hardly the stuff of a hero in the law.
Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.
Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann’s team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.
Weissmann’s prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.
Mueller knows this history. Is this why he tapped Weissmann to target Paul Manafort?
As Attorney General Jackson foretold: “Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”
I've been thinking about this a bit. I'm not sure if you include me in the y'all camp, but I suspect you do based on my often misinterpreted view on guns. I really do want a much smaller government, but I'd like it to be much stronger in regulating what I feel are the public commons, and I'm downright socialist on clean water, air and safe food.
I suspect we'll have a lot of disagreement on where the public commons begins and ends, and what we really have rights to as citizens, and those are all valid discussions where we are allowed to disagree. Eventually, we need to find a way to compromise and move on. If not, we mistake a stalemate for a win.
By accepting Trumps behavior, even if not 'supporting' Trump, we collectively have now set a new standard. And while the Democrats are appropriately aghast at his behavior, they have their own It's okay if we do it problem. And it will be compounded by our collective inability to learn lessons. I'm pretty sure that when the Democrats do eventually return to power (and they will), they will be empowered to be every bit as bad as McConnell and crew have been in the senate. And while I doubt they would resort to the twitter antics we've seen from the white house, the next Democratic president will have all the precedent they want for putting the most extreme version of their ideal in place and ignoring anyone who wasn't 'with them'.
This pendulum is being pushed. It shows no sign of reverting to a norm. The result is not going to be good. and all the "I told you so" that everyone will feel so justified in announcing won't fix any of the destruction that has been wrought on our legacy. Governments fall, societies transition, but when civilization ends, the definition of the result is uncivilized.
"And while I doubt they would resort to the twitter antics we've seen from the white house, the next Democratic president will have all the precedent they want for putting the most extreme version of their ideal in place and ignoring anyone who wasn't 'with them'. " I think you might be right that the Democrats will, on some issues, be more extreme than they have in the past—for instance, I see them nominating a young and very liberal judge to the next Supreme Court opening. Frankly, after the crazy BS McConnell invented about a tradition of not considering an SC appointee in the year before an election, the GOP deserves to suffer serious payback on this point.
But I don't see this happening on bigger efforts involving long-term planning and negotiation. The big projects that the Dems want to require support from as many politicians as possible. They also call for support among big industry players who will rein in the more extreme demands of the left.
The real concern I think is that neither party will work with the other after this. It'll be interesting to see if the GOP survives a huge tax cut for the rich AND the gutting of the ACA. Pretty soon much of Trump's base will have to realize that he's seriously reamed them over.
There is so very much to criticize about Trump and what he is, and has been, doing. This, though, is something for which I would withhold criticism — at least based on what I know about it factually, which, admittedly, is just the basics of what transpired. Although, Scott, I agree with your point that there is a difference between the call General Kelly received from another officer and the call Trump made to a citizen, , I took from what General Kelly said the salient point that no matter what one does, there is no good way of making that kind of call. I'm not sure I am ready to assume Trump performed it uncaringly.
Yes, considering his numerous malfeasances and his callous behavior, his being thoughtless or having a lack of empathy in this episode wouldn't surprise me at all, but I am still reluctant to form a more complete judgment about this without more information.
I took from what General Kelly said the salient point that no matter what one does, there is no good way of making that kind of call. I'm not sure I am ready to assume Trump performed it uncaringly.
I agree with this. It's just that his level of caring seems to include a healthy amount of self-protection.
I will say that I am not a fan of the heretofore unknown Rep. from Florida. The revelation of what was said came at a press conference. That's as unseemly as any missteps the president made in his phone call.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Oct 20, 2017 - 10:00am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
So: the dustup over Trump's phone call to the grieving widow. Gen. Kelly backs him up, saying the phone call from his friend, the officer tasked with informing him that his son had been killed, also said "he knew what he signed up for." And this is true. What Trump told the family: true. But Kelly's example isn't the same. That's an officer talking to another officer about a third, so they were all pretty much on the same page. All 3 of them knew the feeling of duty and honor that called them to battle, all 3 had weighed the risks and deemed them acceptable and justifiable. The wife and mother of 2 doesn't share that bond. She's aware of what her husband did for a living, of course, but probably had a thought that he'd retire and become a plumber or family man and they'd continue their lives together.
When a president orders troops into combat, he can't let himself think of this. He can't be, "oh, that's Sharon Smith's husband; she's expecting their 3rd child, let's send some other team." Or "those young men should be in college, not Niger." I mean, of course he will think of this. His generals will focus his attention by saying "they all know what they signed up for." A moral person could never make that call, without being able to compartmentalize these thoughts.
Now to the absolutely true statement that Trump said to the widow. There are a couple of things going on there that are pure, crystallized Trump: He's making it about him. About Trump. "They knew what they were signing up for" isn't a consolation to the widow, it's re-affirming to the President that he's absolved of any guilt. And saying he knew what he signed up for is victim blaming. "Ma'am, sorry for your loss, but your husband was asking for it. I had nothing to do with it."
There is so very much to criticize about Trump and what he is, and has been, doing. This, though, is something for which I would withhold criticism — at least based on what I know about it factually, which, admittedly, is just the basics of what transpired. Although, Scott, I agree with your point that there is a difference between the call General Kelly received from another officer and the call Trump made to a citizen, , I took from what General Kelly said the salient point that no matter what one does, there is no good way of making that kind of call. I'm not sure I am ready to assume Trump performed it uncaringly.
So: the dustup over Trump's phone call to the grieving widow. Gen. Kelly backs him up, saying the phone call from his friend, the officer tasked with informing him that his son had been killed, also said "he knew what he signed up for." And this is true. What Trump told the family: true. But Kelly's example isn't the same. That's an officer talking to another officer about a third, so they were all pretty much on the same page. All 3 of them knew the feeling of duty and honor that called them to battle, all 3 had weighed the risks and deemed them acceptable and justifiable. The wife and mother of 2 doesn't share that bond. She's aware of what her husband did for a living, of course, but probably had a thought that he'd retire and become a plumber or family man and they'd continue their lives together.
When a president orders troops into combat, he can't let himself think of this. He can't be, "oh, that's Sharon Smith's husband; she's expecting their 3rd child, let's send some other team." Or "those young men should be in college, not Niger." I mean, of course he will think of this. His generals will focus his attention by saying "they all know what they signed up for." A moral person could never make that call, without being able to compartmentalize these thoughts.
Now to the absolutely true statement that Trump said to the widow. There are a couple of things going on there that are pure, crystallized Trump: He's making it about him. About Trump. "They knew what they were signing up for" isn't a consolation to the widow, it's re-affirming to the President that he's absolved of any guilt. And saying he knew what he signed up for is victim blaming. "Ma'am, sorry for your loss, but your husband was asking for it. I had nothing to do with it."
Donald Trump's border wall has always been an ineffective, immoral, and incredibly expensive idea. But lately he's been making it even worse, by suggesting that it double as a giant solar power plant.
The president first floated this notion back in June, saying that a wall topped with solar panels "creates energy and pays for itself." Now, with work on border wall prototypes getting underway, his idea doesn't seem to be just a passing fancy.
"Solar panels or technology bundles on top of the fence certainly isn't off the table," Mario Villarreal, the new division chief for San Diego's Customs and Border Protection field office, toldThe Washington Examiner yesterday. Villarreal's office is overseeing the construction of eight different border wall prototypes.
Since the concept seems largely an illusion, they could hire about 20,000 mimes (they don't really have steady work anyhow) to walk along the border around the clock. They would continuously "mime" the illusion that there is an invisible wall - that way they could also see the dealers before they throw bags of drugs over the "wall".
So: the dustup over Trump's phone call to the grieving widow. Gen. Kelly backs him up, saying the phone call from his friend, the officer tasked with informing him that his son had been killed, also said "he knew what he signed up for." And this is true. What Trump told the family: true. But Kelly's example isn't the same. That's an officer talking to another officer about a third, so they were all pretty much on the same page. All 3 of them knew the feeling of duty and honor that called them to battle, all 3 had weighed the risks and deemed them acceptable and justifiable. The wife and mother of 2 doesn't share that bond. She's aware of what her husband did for a living, of course, but probably had a thought that he'd retire and become a plumber or family man and they'd continue their lives together.
When a president orders troops into combat, he can't let himself think of this. He can't be, "oh, that's Sharon Smith's husband; she's expecting their 3rd child, let's send some other team." Or "those young men should be in college, not Niger." I mean, of course he will think of this. His generals will focus his attention by saying "they all know what they signed up for." A moral person could never make that call, without being able to compartmentalize these thoughts.
Now to the absolutely true statement that Trump said to the widow. There are a couple of things going on there that are pure, crystallized Trump: He's making it about him. About Trump. "They knew what they were signing up for" isn't a consolation to the widow, it's re-affirming to the President that he's absolved of any guilt. And saying he knew what he signed up for is victim blaming. "Ma'am, sorry for your loss, but your husband was asking for it. I had nothing to do with it."
Donald Trump's border wall has always been an ineffective, immoral, and incredibly expensive idea. But lately he's been making it even worse, by suggesting that it double as a giant solar power plant.
The president first floated this notion back in June, saying that a wall topped with solar panels "creates energy and pays for itself." Now, with work on border wall prototypes getting underway, his idea doesn't seem to be just a passing fancy.
"Solar panels or technology bundles on top of the fence certainly isn't off the table," Mario Villarreal, the new division chief for San Diego's Customs and Border Protection field office, toldThe Washington Examiner yesterday. Villarreal's office is overseeing the construction of eight different border wall prototypes.
Since the concept seems largely an illusion, they could hire about 20,000 mimes (they don't really have steady work anyhow) to walk along the border around the clock. They would continuously "mime" the illusion that there is an invisible wall - that way they could also see the dealers before they throw bags of drugs over the "wall".
Donald Trump's border wall has always been an ineffective, immoral, and incredibly expensive idea. But lately he's been making it even worse, by suggesting that it double as a giant solar power plant.
The president first floated this notion back in June, saying that a wall topped with solar panels "creates energy and pays for itself." Now, with work on border wall prototypes getting underway, his idea doesn't seem to be just a passing fancy.
"Solar panels or technology bundles on top of the fence certainly isn't off the table," Mario Villarreal, the new division chief for San Diego's Customs and Border Protection field office, toldThe Washington Examiner yesterday. Villarreal's office is overseeing the construction of eight different border wall prototypes.
Lessons will certainly be learned. what is also disheartening is lowering of the bar in terms of what people will now expect of the office on a go-forward basis.
From my own perspective (assuming I don't end up in a gulag) Trump is a very useful lesson.
Most of y'all complaining about him have a history of demanding that government power do nothing but grow. Any problem we have needs a government program to address* it, another law for the executive branch to enforce, another bureaucrat in charge of it. I want to scream at the top of my lungs "Now do you get it? This is what an all-powerful government could look like!"
From now on I get to remind you, as you demand that government a further growth in government power, that that power could be held or could have been held by Donald Trump.
This isn't a call to prevent someone like him from taking over the executive branch, it's a reminder that someone like him could. And has.
*Never solve. But I digress.
I've been thinking about this a bit. I'm not sure if you include me in the y'all camp, but I suspect you do based on my often misinterpreted view on guns. I really do want a much smaller government, but I'd like it to be much stronger in regulating what I feel are the public commons, and I'm downright socialist on clean water, air and safe food.
I suspect we'll have a lot of disagreement on where the public commons begins and ends, and what we really have rights to as citizens, and those are all valid discussions where we are allowed to disagree. Eventually, we need to find a way to compromise and move on. If not, we mistake a stalemate for a win.
By accepting Trumps behavior, even if not 'supporting' Trump, we collectively have now set a new standard. And while the Democrats are appropriately aghast at his behavior, they have their own It's okay if we do it problem. And it will be compounded by our collective inability to learn lessons. I'm pretty sure that when the Democrats do eventually return to power (and they will), they will be empowered to be every bit as bad as McConnell and crew have been in the senate. And while I doubt they would resort to the twitter antics we've seen from the white house, the next Democratic president will have all the precedent they want for putting the most extreme version of their ideal in place and ignoring anyone who wasn't 'with them'.
This pendulum is being pushed. It shows no sign of reverting to a norm. The result is not going to be good. and all the "I told you so" that everyone will feel so justified in announcing won't fix any of the destruction that has been wrought on our legacy. Governments fall, societies transition, but when civilization ends, the definition of the result is uncivilized.
You of all people should know its not the quantity, its the content of the orders. But I guess not. I was fooled or gave you too much credit ...
With Trump we have three done just in regards to immigration control, two of which are expired and a third one just initiated and immediately blocked once again by the judge in Hawaii.
You do however have everyone agreeing with you based upon the replies that the quantity is most important and none agreeing with me that the content is more important. So I'll just let you and the like minded pay attention to the numbers instead of their content.
If there's one thing President Trump's critics want from him, and he refuses to give up, it's his tax returns.
The returns didn't come up during Wednesday's hearing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. But the hearing was the first step in a process that could loosen Trump's grip on them.
If the next step goes the plaintiffs' way, the case could make the president's tax returns surface.
Trump is being sued by four plaintiffs who allege he is violating anti-corruption provisions in the Constitution, namely, its Foreign and Domestic Emoluments clauses.
If Judge George Daniels says the plaintiffs have legal standing to proceed with the suit, they then can seek internal financial documents, including those tax returns.
"We will be looking for detailed financial records, foreign and domestic transactions, in the president's businesses," plaintiffs' lawyer Joseph Sellers told reporters after the hearing. "If the tax returns turn out to be relevant we may seek them."
