For reasons even I'm not sure of, I suckered myself into watching this interview. At my age I should know better. Nothing new that I could see; no second shoe dropping; just a "here's what Daniels is like," a justification, and a review of What This All Means."
60 Minutes in Australia doesn't do serious news anymore. Their interview of the NZ PM was an embarrassment. They wanted to know when exactly her pregnancy was conceived...
I am reading The Accidental President which is about Harry Truman. I note he was 60 years old when Roosevelt's men asked him to stand for Vice President. He initially declined because he thought he was too old! Why is it we Baby Boomers have to continue to insist on one of us (regardless of party)?
Because those young whipper-snappers haven't been around long enough to know what's going down? They think they're the cat's pajamas, and we don't trust them as far as we can throw those fancy smart phones.
How so? Why would the Daniels person have any beef with Wifey?
I was musing, Ohher, that the two long interviews with Anderson Cooper may be a way of getting at him through her. She and her son seem likely to feel the humiliation more.
Whether that is deliberate or 'collateral damage' I'm not sure. It's a pretty obvious consequence.
I'm not sure it is AC, or at least not on his own. I think he's a good journalist. But I think there is a mainstream media response to the 'fake news' stuff, which may include 'here is some genuine information about your behaviour which neither you nor your wife are going to enjoy'.
For reasons even I'm not sure of, I suckered myself into watching this interview. At my age I should know better. Nothing new that I could see; no second shoe dropping; just a "here's what Daniels is like," a justification, and a review of What This All Means."
Daniels: I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T-- taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin' all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, "Leave Trump alone. Forget the story." And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, "That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom." And then he was gone.
Cooper: You took it as a direct threat?
Daniels: Absolutely.
Daniels: I was rattled. I remember going into the workout class. And my hands are shaking so much, I was afraid I was gonna -- drop her.
Cooper: Did you ever see that person again?
Daniels: No. But I -- if I did, I would know it right away.
Cooper: You'd be able to -- you'd be able to recognize that person?
Daniels: 100%. Even now, all these years later. If he walked in this door right now, I would instantly know.
Cooper: Did you go to the police?
Daniels: No.
Cooper: Why?
Daniels: Because I was scared.
This seems like relevant information about someone who both ultimately controls America's federal law enforcement and surveillance apparatus and who also seems to chafe against the usual norms against using that apparatus to pursue personal or political vendettas.
And why it's not, for me, new information. It's a new claim which (though I find it credible given the personnel & circs involved) hasn't, as noted, been substantiated.
And why it's not, for me, new information. It's a new claim which (though I find it credible given the personnel & circs involved) hasn't, as noted, been substantiated.
That's an interesting distinction. Does the fact that such a claim is being made count as "new information"? How does this distinction apply to other claims/information? For example, does the previously mentioned Gawker story that Guccifer 2.0 is (allegedly) a GRU officer count as a "claim", because we're asked to take Gawker's word for it, or is it "information" since they give us an outline of their evidence without actually providing that evidence? (e.g. "a real, Moscow-based Internet Protocol address in the server logs of an American social media company" according to "a source familiar with the government’s Guccifer investigation") And if it's the latter how does this differ from Ms. Daniel's first person account of something that allegedly happened to her?
The real issue for Trump is that if he calls it fake news he has little defence to the riposte 'then why are your agents seeking to suppress it?'.
Yes. Currently POTUS is claiming, "the affair never happened, the payoff never happened, and I'm suing her for breaking the Do Not Disclose agreement about said affair that never happened..."
But, as noted above, this isn't the first time we've seen that exact same confluence of mutually contradictory statements. Cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to trouble his supporters much.
I don't follow Gawker and can form no useful opinion of its journalistic standards or reliability. I believe they've broken some important stories -- about the former mayor of Toronto, for example -- but I only know about these efforts from other news outlets I do generally trust.
That's an interesting distinction. Does the fact that such a claim is being made count as "new information"?
If you want to scrupulously avoid the type of tactics being deployed by the "fake news" brigade, I think the distinction is worthwhile.
There are various standards of proof in courts of law, such as balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think "he said/she said" is going to cut it as "beyond reasonable doubt" in this climate. As things stand, no evidence has been made public other than Daniels' word for it. It's too easy to dismiss it as a baseless smear campaign.
I don't follow Gawker and can form no useful opinion of its journalistic standards or reliability. I believe they've broken some important stories -- about the former mayor of Toronto, for example -- but I only know about these efforts from other news outlets I do generally trust.
Very well, let's look at those. Do the things reported in "other news outlets [ you ] do generally trust" count as "claims" or "information"? For example, if two Washington Post reporters cite anonymous sources saying that the attempted burglary and wiretapping of the DNC headquarters is tied to figures within the White House, does that count as "information" or as a "claim"? Is that even a meaningful distinction in this case, since the fact that the claim is being made would seem to be new information?
I don't follow Gawker and can form no useful opinion of its journalistic standards or reliability. I believe they've broken some important stories -- about the former mayor of Toronto, for example -- but I only know about these efforts from other news outlets I do generally trust.
It'd be no use following Gawker, as it hasn't published new material since 2016. The story should have been credited to the Daily Beast.
I offer no opinion (or interest, for that matter), of whether the above-posted sentence consists of new "information" or a new "claim".
The main thing of interest about the Stormy Daniels story isn't the prurient details or the shocking revelation that Donald Trump may have been as unfaithful to his third wife as he was to his first two, it's that the president* is amenable to blackmail. This is something we've discussed here before, but this recent Vox article goes into great depth.
All that said, for one reason or another, Trump is clearly quite committed to trying to prevent his former partners from discussing their dalliances in public. He and his associates are willing to put cash on the line for this, threaten massive legal consequences, and perhaps even engage in acts of physical intimidation.
Trump has secrets that he regards as worth keeping.
Maybe that’s all it is. Maybe Daniels and McDougal are the only women he’s ever paid off. Or maybe there are others out there but nobody from Russia or the United Arab Emirates or the Mossad or whoever hates the Japanese steel industry found out about it. Anything’s possible. But I have my doubts.
<snip>
Like everyone else, I am on some level merely curious as to whether there are embarrassing facts — or, even more embarrassing, tapes or photos — about the president’s sex life. But precisely because a lot of people would be interested in embarrassing material about the president’s sex life — and because Trump, a very image-conscious person, could be very worried about that interest — the existence of embarrassing secrets could well be a national security crisis for the country.
If Trump is in the habit of making these kinds of payments, we need to have a full account of it. And the sooner, the better.
Very well, let's look at those. Do the things reported in "other news outlets [ you ] do generally trust" count as "claims" or "information"? For example, if two Washington Post reporters cite anonymous sources saying that the attempted burglary and wiretapping of the DNC headquarters is tied to figures within the White House, does that count as "information" or as a "claim"?
While I do generally trust outlets like the Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the practice of using anonymous sources usually leaves me reserving judgment, at least until more coverage comes out. Long ago, I worked for a small local daily, and my editors allowed me to cite an anonymous source only once in all the work I produced for them. It's not considered a sterling journalistic practice. Of course, the environments were different; I was relatively inexperienced; staff reporters there did their own fact-checking, and mostly worked solo on stories; in a small city which is also a state capital, people wear multiple hats and figuring out who's who is no challenge for readers even when a reporter tries to shield identities; the paper had shallow pockets (though it does rack up Pulitzers now and again) and was very cautious about potential for lawsuits in the event of error, etc.
The Post, Times, and Journal operate in a very different universe. Getting people on the record for stories like Watergate is a vanishingly remote possibility. Not only do sources want to keep their jobs and stay out of jail, the reporters working the story need them to remain employed and at liberty too if they're to amass more material for publication and further/eventual corroboration.
Another difference lies in the fact that in the case of news outlets using anonymous sources, there's generally some kind of institutional backup for the assertions being made; it's not always just a case of one individual's word against another's. I don't pretend to know what challenges Woodward & Bernstein put Deep Throat through to assure themselves of his veracity, though I'm sure they must have made this effort; nor do I know what counsel and publishers consulted each other about behind the scenes at the Post (and no I haven't seen the movie, even if that's portrayed accurately therein). I'm confident, though, that Woodward & Bernstein did due diligence, their paper's editors, publishers, and legal counsel did likewise.
Is that even a meaningful distinction in this case, since the fact that the claim is being made would seem to be new information?
Well, it appears that it's not a meaningful distinction for you. It is for me. As already noted, Daniels was dealing with people who have a history of lying and intimidation. She herself comes across (to me, anyway) as credible. But I came away from the interview having learned nothing about Trump or his legal advisers I hadn't known before, and it appears to me that Trump's presidency is in no greater or newer danger than it already was. I'd be thrilled to bits to be proven wrong.
it appears to me that Trump's presidency is in no greater or newer danger than it already was.
I think there's an important distinction here.
To any outsider it appears obvious there is huge scope for Trump to be compromised. However, this unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean his presidency is in any danger in terms of voters. The right has manipulated voters through biased reporting and a distortion of the facts to the extent that people either don't believe the allegations or have been actively discouraged from engaging in critical thinking.
And @Crœsos I think @Ohher is right that the reliabity of information is linked, not inextricably but linked nonetheless, to the credibility of the source reporting it.
In other news, I've reached part II of The faith of Donald J Trump. It's excruciating reading and confirms a lot of my thoughts - mostly that the character of Rick in John Le Carré's A perfect spy is virtually a role model for Trump - and has offered some fresh insights. More clues about his lack of any meaningful faith (other than in himself) than its existence, though.
Back in the day when Watergate broke, the given was that there had to be two or more sources confirming a story -even anonymous ones- before an editor would allow it to run. An editor would have to trust the reporters to be truthful when they said that they had the sources if anonymous. Is this still a standard that journalists abide by? Are there consequences if they it were found they didn't have those sources? I don't know. The Jayson Blair scandal was egregious, but he had a pretty long run before he was caught.
Back in the day when Watergate broke, the given was that there had to be two or more sources confirming a story -even anonymous ones- before an editor would allow it to run. An editor would have to trust the reporters to be truthful when they said that they had the sources if anonymous. Is this still a standard that journalists abide by? Are there consequences if they it were found they didn't have those sources? I don't know. The Jayson Blair scandal was egregious, but he had a pretty long run before he was caught.
It's been some years -- decades, actually -- since I was a practicing journalist, but AFAIK, a minimum of two sources which are independent of each other is still the gold standard. The consequences for failing to adhere to this standard can range from none (assuming you talked the situation over with your editor when you couldn't dig these up, and the editor, if the situation warranted, felt the story justified running it anyway and maybe kicked it upstairs for further vetting) to exposing the paper to lawsuits, to exposing yourself to lawsuits, to getting fired.
I am reading The Accidental President which is about Harry Truman. I note he was 60 years old when Roosevelt's men asked him to stand for Vice President. He initially declined because he thought he was too old! Why is it we Baby Boomers have to continue to insist on one of us (regardless of party)?
It is kind of weird. Our pollies are generally off sunning themselves well before 70. I am hastily casting my mind back, but I can't think of any who were really old, like Trump or Feinstein or McCain. Sometimes I wonder whether Trumps parade will be in winter, and all the oldies will be rugged up on the balcony, stony-faced and waving like automatons as the troops file past.
It is kind of weird. Our pollies are generally off sunning themselves well before 70. I am hastily casting my mind back, but I can't think of any who were really old, like Trump or Feinstein or McCain.
it appears to me that Trump's presidency is in no greater or newer danger than it already was.
I think there's an important distinction here.
To any outsider it appears obvious there is huge scope for Trump to be compromised. However, this unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean his presidency is in any danger in terms of voters.
I wasn't thinking of voters, but of potential impeachment charges. I've assumed Trump is vulnerable to blackmail over any number of items since it became obvious he would not release his tax returns. He probably thinks he can just go on "settling" challenges which arise as he did in his business dealings, and with Trump University at the beginning of his term. He's accustomed to turning lawyers loose on such problems and making them disappear in a puff of greenbacks; this means nothing to him -- no embarrassment, no pain, no consequences.
He hasn't managed to adjust his so-called thought process to the notion that he now, for the first time in his life, has others to answer to who cannot be "disappeared" with money and lawyers.
Back in the day when Watergate broke, the given was that there had to be two or more sources confirming a story -even anonymous ones- before an editor would allow it to run. An editor would have to trust the reporters to be truthful when they said that they had the sources if anonymous. Is this still a standard that journalists abide by? Are there consequences if they it were found they didn't have those sources? I don't know. The Jayson Blair scandal was egregious, but he had a pretty long run before he was caught.
It's been some years -- decades, actually -- since I was a practicing journalist, but AFAIK, a minimum of two sources which are independent of each other is still the gold standard. The consequences for failing to adhere to this standard can range from none (assuming you talked the situation over with your editor when you couldn't dig these up, and the editor, if the situation warranted, felt the story justified running it anyway and maybe kicked it upstairs for further vetting) to exposing the paper to lawsuits, to exposing yourself to lawsuits, to getting fired.
I remember in All the President's Men one time our boys got too tricky with a confirmation (some kind of code to signal if some fact was confirmed or not, and the source thought he was denying the fact and not confirming it with the code) and it blew up in their faces. Ben Bradley reamed them a new one for that goof.
It is kind of weird. Our pollies are generally off sunning themselves well before 70. I am hastily casting my mind back, but I can't think of any who were really old, like Trump or Feinstein or McCain.
Hehe. Neither Her Majesty nor her proxy are politicians, although in rare circumstances they must exercise political power. There is no dispute as to who is our head of state. There are those who share my view, and those who are wrong.
<<Tangent alert>> Yeah; I'm afraid I've been on the receiving end of an editor's wrath once or twice, but not for anything quite THAT important. Oddly, the only death threats I ever received as a reporter came when I was covering the schools beat.
I'm not even going to say this is a tangent. I'm lobbing it in. Late last night as I lay awake thinking about the terrible cricket news I got the idea of getting out of my left-of-liberal bubble, so I followed Fox News on Facebook. Within a few minutes I got the news bomb as every single post on my feed seemed to have turned into a Fox News post.
I got to sleep at about 3am, for a 5:30am start...
I wasn't thinking of voters, but of potential impeachment charges.
I repeat my depressing contention that Trump is going to be around until 2024 in the hope of being proved wrong.
Somene, I think @Crœsos, made quite a convincing case earlier that even if the House flips, the Senate is very unlikely to. I think the likelihood of Republicans voting to impeach Trump (which would be required in such a scenario for impeachment) is vanishingly small. If it does happen, it will be extremely ugly given Trump's behaviour to date. If the US is to rescue its democracy without violence, the humble ballot box is the only place that can happen, however long it takes.
(I do however have a procedural question: what happens if a sitting President is indicted on state, not Federal charges?).
I don't think the indictment question has ever been resolved in a court. The usual wisdom is that a President cannot be indicted. He can be impeached. I doubt whether it is different at state level. Any attempt to indict at state level would be resisted on constitutional grounds and would probably whizz up to the Supreme Court.
I think there has been some argument about crimes committed prior to taking office. A!so whether the 25th amendment makes a difference, since the President can temporarily step down. But I don't think the issue has been resolved.
Bill Clinton did lose his Arkansas law license. I think it was in connection with the impeachment. Possibly about the Whitewater mess, rather than the ripple effects of his infidelity. Or possibly perjury during the hearing.
I'm not sure if his law license was cancelled at the time, or after he was out of office.
The Constitution seems to me to imply impeach first, remove from office, then indict.
But it seems that modern legal opinion is mixed. The President is not above the law. But where does he get tried first for alleged crimes and misdemeanors? Congress - or somewhere else?
Someone, I think @Crœsos, made quite a convincing case earlier that even if the House flips, the Senate is very unlikely to. I think the likelihood of Republicans voting to impeach Trump (which would be required in such a scenario for impeachment) is vanishingly small.
I did make that argument. It was premised on the near-impossibility of the Democrats picking up a net gain of 3 seats in the U.S. Senate in the 2018 election. Since I made that argument the Democrats have gained a Senate seat in Alabama, something no one (including myself) regarded as anything other than a long shot. Right now I'd give the Democrats about 50/50 odds of gaining control of the U.S. Senate in 2018. On the one hand Dean Heller of Nevada is looking vulnerable and the Republican primary in Arizona to replace Jeff Flake looks like a mess. On the other hand the Democrats would also have to successfully defend seats in Montana and North Dakota.
The Constitution seems to me to imply impeach first, remove from office, then indict.
But it seems that modern legal opinion is mixed. The President is not above the law. But where does he get tried first for alleged crimes and misdemeanors? Congress - or somewhere else?
I think I prefer the traditional view.
Congress can only try impeachments, which are typically regarded as 'trials' for abuse of power. The only penalties available to Congress are "removal from Office" and "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". That latter bit was included by the framers of the Constitution to prevent the president from simply re-appointing an impeached official who had been removed by Congress. (Remember, impeachment isn't just for presidents!)
The conventional wisdom that the president cannot be indicted or tried is not from the Constitution but the rather more pragmatic argument that an indicted president would be unable to (effectively) discharge the powers and duties of his office. Fortunately the U.S. now has the 25th Amendment for exactly that purpose.
Many federal officials in the past have been indicted and convicted of a crime before they have been impeached. The Supreme Court in Clinton v Jones did rule a civil suit against a sitting president is possible, but there is debate as to whether a criminal case may be brought against the president. I would think if that happened it would impel the president to voluntarily step down at least temporarily, or the cabinet may involuntarily have him step aside during the prosecution of such a case.
Unless you happen to be a Congress where the majority party gives f-all about anything except dismantling the government -- which agenda the president is busy carrying out.
“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”
— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution
Croesos
While I accept the 25th Amendment argument, I think a case can be made from the above that indictment may be expected to follow conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors via impeachment. It's the phrase "but the party convicted" which points to this sequence.
It's not a conclusive argument. One could argue, alternatively, from Article 1 that if indictment has not occurred before impeachment it can occur afterwards, but that does not rule out indictment before.
But I think it sets a precedent if Mueller seeks to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice, rather than report to Congress that he has found "a high crime and misdemeanor". And any attempt to indict would seem destined for the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality.
From what is already in the public domain, it seems very clear that he has indeed obstructed justice, regardless of any arguments about prior collusion. But whether Mueller could bring that to court is another matter.
I agree with your argument that there is no chance of successful impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate) after the midterms, simply because of the mathematics. The Democrats cannot win enough seats to produce a 2/3 majority and the GOP will not support them in anything like sufficient numbers.
I knew they were friends, though perhaps not as close as I thought. But I've been hoping he'd say something this direct. (He previously made other comments.)
Reading the article, maybe HS should try to get T on his show again. The show is generally raw, raunchy, and rough. If HS can get T talking and *keep* him talking... Well, T tends to say incriminating and/or outrageous things if he talks long enough.
T tends to say incriminating and/or outrageous things if he talks long enough.
And so . . . ? What would be the point? Surely by now we've had mountains of evidence confirming that NOTHING T says or does will get him removed the White House until or unless GOP Congresscritters feel their re-elections face real and imminent threat. There's NO evidence that T will ever voluntarily resign. How can there be? Living inside his own fantastic, confirmation-bias bubble, T is daily affirmed, by his own orders, of his rightness, his justification, his made-up reality, where in his own mind, he's doing a great job. If we've learned anything from this administration, it's that we've turned too much power over to the presidency during the last 50 years.
T is already on record saying incriminating and outrageous things. He's already DONE outrageous things, and ACKNOWLEDGED doing them. Really, we have to stop hoping for worse, because worse will come, and worse will not save us -- indeed, may destroy us. Where this downward spiral leads, I shudder to think.
Short of criminal acts (and I am not advocating for those), our only weapon is the ballot box. 223 days, plus whatever Bob Mueller comes out with in the run-up to those elections. Even that will not stop T; a democratic-controlled House will only hamper him.
And, now, Herr Rump wants to bypass Congress to build The Wall through the military budget. After all, the military won't miss $25 bil would they? I think about the only way he could do that is by declaring (gasp) martial law along the Mexican border. There is a law on the books and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that states the president cannot re appropriate money already authorized by Congress without congressional consent.
There is a law on the books and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that states the president cannot re appropriate money already authorized by Congress without congressional consent.
And what makes you think that the Republicans in Congress won't just roll over and give that consent? It seems to me to be a very Trumpian way of doing things.
The House of Representatives may want to roll over; but, given the upcoming elections and many of the Republican seats are being challenged, I do not think they will want to do that until after the election, provided they win. Even if the HOR does pass a bill now, there is a lot of resistance in the Senate to Trump anyway. It would be blocked there.
Here's the latest creative lawyering from the Manafort team, presented without any endorsement on my part of the commentary within the editorial.
The basic theory is that Jeff Sessions recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Following that recusal, Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate “links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” Manafort's attorneys argue that the indictment, on its face, does not relate to matters related to the campaign, or links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. So not only has Mueller overstepped Rosenstein's appointment, he is acting in an arena where Sessions could still, if he wanted to, direct Mueller or someone else to act, but hasn't. So the indictment is outside of Mueller's power as special prosecutor, and should be dismissed.
Can we imagine Trump's attorneys jumping on this, or pushing Sessions to step up and try to put limits on Mueller's investigation, to the extent he is looking into the Trump Organization or post-election matters? It seems like a way to hinder Mueller without crossing the line of firing him.
Comments
How so? Why would the Daniels person have any beef with Wifey?
Because those young whipper-snappers haven't been around long enough to know what's going down? They think they're the cat's pajamas, and we don't trust them as far as we can throw those fancy smart phones.
Peace out.
Whether that is deliberate or 'collateral damage' I'm not sure. It's a pretty obvious consequence.
The fact that Trump allegedly employs "legbreakers" to threaten people seems like new information.
This seems like relevant information about someone who both ultimately controls America's federal law enforcement and surveillance apparatus and who also seems to chafe against the usual norms against using that apparatus to pursue personal or political vendettas.
I can totally believe it, but it won't do much if it can't be corroborated.
Hence my use of the word "allegedly" when introducing the quote. "Allegedly" is quite the friend to reporters.
The real issue for Trump is that if he calls it fake news he has little defence to the riposte 'then why are your agents seeking to suppress it?'.
That's an interesting distinction. Does the fact that such a claim is being made count as "new information"? How does this distinction apply to other claims/information? For example, does the previously mentioned Gawker story that Guccifer 2.0 is (allegedly) a GRU officer count as a "claim", because we're asked to take Gawker's word for it, or is it "information" since they give us an outline of their evidence without actually providing that evidence? (e.g. "a real, Moscow-based Internet Protocol address in the server logs of an American social media company" according to "a source familiar with the government’s Guccifer investigation") And if it's the latter how does this differ from Ms. Daniel's first person account of something that allegedly happened to her?
Yes. Currently POTUS is claiming, "the affair never happened, the payoff never happened, and I'm suing her for breaking the Do Not Disclose agreement about said affair that never happened..."
But, as noted above, this isn't the first time we've seen that exact same confluence of mutually contradictory statements. Cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to trouble his supporters much.
I think it concerns him. Here is his latest tweet
No reference to Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougall. He just can't do that.
And Avenatti (Daniels' lawyer) will press on this weakness for all he is worth, and keep the story going.
There are various standards of proof in courts of law, such as balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think "he said/she said" is going to cut it as "beyond reasonable doubt" in this climate. As things stand, no evidence has been made public other than Daniels' word for it. It's too easy to dismiss it as a baseless smear campaign.
Very well, let's look at those. Do the things reported in "other news outlets [ you ] do generally trust" count as "claims" or "information"? For example, if two Washington Post reporters cite anonymous sources saying that the attempted burglary and wiretapping of the DNC headquarters is tied to figures within the White House, does that count as "information" or as a "claim"? Is that even a meaningful distinction in this case, since the fact that the claim is being made would seem to be new information?
It'd be no use following Gawker, as it hasn't published new material since 2016. The story should have been credited to the Daily Beast.
I offer no opinion (or interest, for that matter), of whether the above-posted sentence consists of new "information" or a new "claim".
While I do generally trust outlets like the Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the practice of using anonymous sources usually leaves me reserving judgment, at least until more coverage comes out. Long ago, I worked for a small local daily, and my editors allowed me to cite an anonymous source only once in all the work I produced for them. It's not considered a sterling journalistic practice. Of course, the environments were different; I was relatively inexperienced; staff reporters there did their own fact-checking, and mostly worked solo on stories; in a small city which is also a state capital, people wear multiple hats and figuring out who's who is no challenge for readers even when a reporter tries to shield identities; the paper had shallow pockets (though it does rack up Pulitzers now and again) and was very cautious about potential for lawsuits in the event of error, etc.
The Post, Times, and Journal operate in a very different universe. Getting people on the record for stories like Watergate is a vanishingly remote possibility. Not only do sources want to keep their jobs and stay out of jail, the reporters working the story need them to remain employed and at liberty too if they're to amass more material for publication and further/eventual corroboration.
Still, even the journalistic Big Boys err. Remember Jayson Blair from The New York Times? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
Another difference lies in the fact that in the case of news outlets using anonymous sources, there's generally some kind of institutional backup for the assertions being made; it's not always just a case of one individual's word against another's. I don't pretend to know what challenges Woodward & Bernstein put Deep Throat through to assure themselves of his veracity, though I'm sure they must have made this effort; nor do I know what counsel and publishers consulted each other about behind the scenes at the Post (and no I haven't seen the movie, even if that's portrayed accurately therein). I'm confident, though, that Woodward & Bernstein did due diligence, their paper's editors, publishers, and legal counsel did likewise.
Well, it appears that it's not a meaningful distinction for you. It is for me. As already noted, Daniels was dealing with people who have a history of lying and intimidation. She herself comes across (to me, anyway) as credible. But I came away from the interview having learned nothing about Trump or his legal advisers I hadn't known before, and it appears to me that Trump's presidency is in no greater or newer danger than it already was. I'd be thrilled to bits to be proven wrong.
To any outsider it appears obvious there is huge scope for Trump to be compromised. However, this unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean his presidency is in any danger in terms of voters. The right has manipulated voters through biased reporting and a distortion of the facts to the extent that people either don't believe the allegations or have been actively discouraged from engaging in critical thinking.
And @Crœsos I think @Ohher is right that the reliabity of information is linked, not inextricably but linked nonetheless, to the credibility of the source reporting it.
In other news, I've reached part II of The faith of Donald J Trump. It's excruciating reading and confirms a lot of my thoughts - mostly that the character of Rick in John Le Carré's A perfect spy is virtually a role model for Trump - and has offered some fresh insights. More clues about his lack of any meaningful faith (other than in himself) than its existence, though.
It's been some years -- decades, actually -- since I was a practicing journalist, but AFAIK, a minimum of two sources which are independent of each other is still the gold standard. The consequences for failing to adhere to this standard can range from none (assuming you talked the situation over with your editor when you couldn't dig these up, and the editor, if the situation warranted, felt the story justified running it anyway and maybe kicked it upstairs for further vetting) to exposing the paper to lawsuits, to exposing yourself to lawsuits, to getting fired.
It is kind of weird. Our pollies are generally off sunning themselves well before 70. I am hastily casting my mind back, but I can't think of any who were really old, like Trump or Feinstein or McCain. Sometimes I wonder whether Trumps parade will be in winter, and all the oldies will be rugged up on the balcony, stony-faced and waving like automatons as the troops file past.
Stand up, you victims of oppression....
Isn't your head of state 91? Or possibly 70? I understand there's some dispute about the matter.
I wasn't thinking of voters, but of potential impeachment charges. I've assumed Trump is vulnerable to blackmail over any number of items since it became obvious he would not release his tax returns. He probably thinks he can just go on "settling" challenges which arise as he did in his business dealings, and with Trump University at the beginning of his term. He's accustomed to turning lawyers loose on such problems and making them disappear in a puff of greenbacks; this means nothing to him -- no embarrassment, no pain, no consequences.
He hasn't managed to adjust his so-called thought process to the notion that he now, for the first time in his life, has others to answer to who cannot be "disappeared" with money and lawyers.
I remember in All the President's Men one time our boys got too tricky with a confirmation (some kind of code to signal if some fact was confirmed or not, and the source thought he was denying the fact and not confirming it with the code) and it blew up in their faces. Ben Bradley reamed them a new one for that goof.
Hehe. Neither Her Majesty nor her proxy are politicians, although in rare circumstances they must exercise political power. There is no dispute as to who is our head of state. There are those who share my view, and those who are wrong.
I got to sleep at about 3am, for a 5:30am start...
Somene, I think @Crœsos, made quite a convincing case earlier that even if the House flips, the Senate is very unlikely to. I think the likelihood of Republicans voting to impeach Trump (which would be required in such a scenario for impeachment) is vanishingly small. If it does happen, it will be extremely ugly given Trump's behaviour to date. If the US is to rescue its democracy without violence, the humble ballot box is the only place that can happen, however long it takes.
(I do however have a procedural question: what happens if a sitting President is indicted on state, not Federal charges?).
I think there has been some argument about crimes committed prior to taking office. A!so whether the 25th amendment makes a difference, since the President can temporarily step down. But I don't think the issue has been resolved.
I'm not sure if his law license was cancelled at the time, or after he was out of office.
The Constitution seems to me to imply impeach first, remove from office, then indict.
But it seems that modern legal opinion is mixed. The President is not above the law. But where does he get tried first for alleged crimes and misdemeanors? Congress - or somewhere else?
I think I prefer the traditional view.
I did make that argument. It was premised on the near-impossibility of the Democrats picking up a net gain of 3 seats in the U.S. Senate in the 2018 election. Since I made that argument the Democrats have gained a Senate seat in Alabama, something no one (including myself) regarded as anything other than a long shot. Right now I'd give the Democrats about 50/50 odds of gaining control of the U.S. Senate in 2018. On the one hand Dean Heller of Nevada is looking vulnerable and the Republican primary in Arizona to replace Jeff Flake looks like a mess. On the other hand the Democrats would also have to successfully defend seats in Montana and North Dakota.
Of course, control isn't enough to convict an impeached individual. For that you need a 2/3rds supermajority, something that is a mathematical impossibility for Democrats to achieve in 2018.
That was a penalty imposed upon him by the Arkansas Bar Association, not a criminal or civil penalty imposed by a court.
[rectified quote tags]
Congress can only try impeachments, which are typically regarded as 'trials' for abuse of power. The only penalties available to Congress are "removal from Office" and "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". That latter bit was included by the framers of the Constitution to prevent the president from simply re-appointing an impeached official who had been removed by Congress. (Remember, impeachment isn't just for presidents!)
The conventional wisdom that the president cannot be indicted or tried is not from the Constitution but the rather more pragmatic argument that an indicted president would be unable to (effectively) discharge the powers and duties of his office. Fortunately the U.S. now has the 25th Amendment for exactly that purpose.
While I accept the 25th Amendment argument, I think a case can be made from the above that indictment may be expected to follow conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors via impeachment. It's the phrase "but the party convicted" which points to this sequence.
It's not a conclusive argument. One could argue, alternatively, from Article 1 that if indictment has not occurred before impeachment it can occur afterwards, but that does not rule out indictment before.
But I think it sets a precedent if Mueller seeks to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice, rather than report to Congress that he has found "a high crime and misdemeanor". And any attempt to indict would seem destined for the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality.
From what is already in the public domain, it seems very clear that he has indeed obstructed justice, regardless of any arguments about prior collusion. But whether Mueller could bring that to court is another matter.
I agree with your argument that there is no chance of successful impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate) after the midterms, simply because of the mathematics. The Democrats cannot win enough seats to produce a 2/3 majority and the GOP will not support them in anything like sufficient numbers.
"Howard Stern tells Donald Trump to 'get the f*** out of the White House'" (Yahoo/Independent).
I knew they were friends, though perhaps not as close as I thought. But I've been hoping he'd say something this direct. (He previously made other comments.)
Reading the article, maybe HS should try to get T on his show again. The show is generally raw, raunchy, and rough. If HS can get T talking and *keep* him talking... Well, T tends to say incriminating and/or outrageous things if he talks long enough.
And so . . . ? What would be the point? Surely by now we've had mountains of evidence confirming that NOTHING T says or does will get him removed the White House until or unless GOP Congresscritters feel their re-elections face real and imminent threat. There's NO evidence that T will ever voluntarily resign. How can there be? Living inside his own fantastic, confirmation-bias bubble, T is daily affirmed, by his own orders, of his rightness, his justification, his made-up reality, where in his own mind, he's doing a great job. If we've learned anything from this administration, it's that we've turned too much power over to the presidency during the last 50 years.
T is already on record saying incriminating and outrageous things. He's already DONE outrageous things, and ACKNOWLEDGED doing them. Really, we have to stop hoping for worse, because worse will come, and worse will not save us -- indeed, may destroy us. Where this downward spiral leads, I shudder to think.
Short of criminal acts (and I am not advocating for those), our only weapon is the ballot box. 223 days, plus whatever Bob Mueller comes out with in the run-up to those elections. Even that will not stop T; a democratic-controlled House will only hamper him.
The basic theory is that Jeff Sessions recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Following that recusal, Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate “links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” Manafort's attorneys argue that the indictment, on its face, does not relate to matters related to the campaign, or links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. So not only has Mueller overstepped Rosenstein's appointment, he is acting in an arena where Sessions could still, if he wanted to, direct Mueller or someone else to act, but hasn't. So the indictment is outside of Mueller's power as special prosecutor, and should be dismissed.
Can we imagine Trump's attorneys jumping on this, or pushing Sessions to step up and try to put limits on Mueller's investigation, to the extent he is looking into the Trump Organization or post-election matters? It seems like a way to hinder Mueller without crossing the line of firing him.