What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

The Canadian experience is similar - as far as our parties becoming deficit reduction crusaders in the 90s but we diverge when it comes to how the budgets were balanced and what followed.   Rather than slaying the deficit mainly through spending reduction we did it mainly through tax increases.  Once the budget was balanced we then entered a long period of balanced budgets, relative spending decreases or freezes and tax reduction.  That came to an end with the market meltdown in 2008 but bringing the books back into balance continued to be a primary plank in all our political party's platforms until the last federal election.  In that election the NDP (our most left leaning party) and the governing Conservatives continued to promise balanced budgets.  The Liberals effectively stole the vote from the NDP and kept enough of the middle by promising they would intentionally run deficits for a brief period of time to allow the economy to recover.  That was the turning point in the election and you now get to enjoy Trudeau dressing up in local costumes as he goes on his world tours.

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated and the Liberals are still committed to deficit spending.  I suspect that the deficit issue is going to be the Liberal's largest obstacle to re-election (even greater than Trudeau's need to dress up )

Interesting, so in large part, he and his party are Tony Blair's new Labour?

In the Canadian context, more like the old Liberals of his father's generation.

[mongers]

The Canadian experience is similar - as far as our parties becoming deficit reduction crusaders in the 90s but we diverge when it comes to how the budgets were balanced and what followed.   Rather than slaying the deficit mainly through spending reduction we did it mainly through tax increases.  Once the budget was balanced we then entered a long period of balanced budgets, relative spending decreases or freezes and tax reduction.  That came to an end with the market meltdown in 2008 but bringing the books back into balance continued to be a primary plank in all our political party's platforms until the last federal election.  In that election the NDP (our most left leaning party) and the governing Conservatives continued to promise balanced budgets.  The Liberals effectively stole the vote from the NDP and kept enough of the middle by promising they would intentionally run deficits for a brief period of time to allow the economy to recover.  That was the turning point in the election and you now get to enjoy Trudeau dressing up in local costumes as he goes on his world tours.

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated and the Liberals are still committed to deficit spending.  I suspect that the deficit issue is going to be the Liberal's largest obstacle to re-election (even greater than Trudeau's need to dress up )

Interesting, so in large part, he and his party are Tony Blair's new Labour?

In the Canadian context, more like the old Liberals of his father's generation.

Thanks for that.

But damn I'm old, I can even remember a bit of the Pierre Trudeau years, wasn't he at first seen as a breath of fresh air, but then got rather mired in various things, including the 2nd flourishing of Quebec nationalism???

[jimmy olsen]

It would be sadly appropriate if this is what took down Trump and co.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/stormy-daniels-has-put-trumps-fixer-in-serious-legal-danger.html

Stormy Daniels Has Put Trump Fixer Michael Cohen in Serious Legal Danger

By  Jonathan Chait@jonathanchait

The saga of Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels ultimately has very little to do with sex, and in a sense is only incidentally about Stormy Daniels at all. The most important figure in the new 60 Minutes report on the episode is Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer and fixer. Cohen might be facing significant legal jeopardy, and this could expose Trump himself as deeply as anything related to Russia.

As Daniels and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, recount, Cohen was the point of contact in Trump's negotiations to keep Daniels quiet about their affair. Cohen paid her $130,000 to sign a nondisclosure agreement. This could well be an illegal campaign expenditure on Trump's behalf — Cohen was paying Daniels for the purpose of aiding Trump's campaign. Cohen claims he paid the money out of his own pocket, which would make Cohen the perpetrator of the campaign finance violation. But Avenatti has documents showing that the payment was sent to Cohen at his Trump Tower location, and communicated through his official Trump Organization email. That strongly indicates, and perhaps even proves, Cohen was making the payment on Trump's behalf.

A second aspect of the story contains even more danger for Trump. Daniels describes being approached by a man in a parking lot who threatened her:

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.

Daniels says she would recognize the man if she saw him again, but does not know who it was. There is a lot of reason to suspect Cohen had something to do with the threat. Cohen is a Trump cultist, whose legal skills, such as they are, compose a small portion of his value to the Trump organization. His true value is as a goon. "If somebody does something Mr. Trump doesn't like, I do everything in my power to resolve it to Mr. Trump's benefit," Cohen said in 2011. "If you do something wrong, I'm going to come at you, grab you by the neck and I'm not going to let you go until I'm finished." In 2015, he told a reporter, "I'm warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?"

Intimidating and threatening people who get in Trump's way seems to be a recurring theme in his business interactions. There are many documented instances of this behavior. One victim of Trump's shady financial maneuverings in Atlantic City received a phone call and was told, "My name is Carmine. I don't know why you're fucking with Mr. Trump but if you keep fucking with Mr. Trump, we know where you live and we're going to your house for your wife and kids."

The Washington Post has already reported that Robert Mueller "has requested documents and interviewed witnesses about incidents involving Michael Cohen." What could those incidents involve? The Stormy Daniels episode suggests the list starts with campaign finance violations and may end with making threats, or ordering others to do so. When Trump's allies warn that Mueller is conducting a "Gambino-style roll-up" of his organization, this is the sort of thing they may have in mind.

It may be difficult to imagine Cohen, the ultimate Trump loyalist, turning on his patron and idol. But mafiosos turn on their friends and mentors all the time. And Trump's organization was run in many respects like a crime family, with a sprawling web of shady and probably illegal activity, including but not limited to dealings with Russia. If Stormy Daniels's account holds up, then it opens a vast new avenue for potential risk to Cohen, and ultimately Trump.

[jimmy olsen]

Also, do these law podcast guys know what they're talking about?

They make it sound like Cohen fucked this up beyond repair.

https://overcast.fm/+HG-XBMeV8/

Also, lol, congress talking at jab at Russia.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-snuck-new-russia-sanctions-into-spending-bill

Congress Snuck New Russia Sanctions Into Spending Bill

Congress wants to be sure that the United States keeps the pressure on Russia, with or without the president's help.

Buried in the massive $1.3 trillion spending bill that Congress is considering this week are strict new punishments against Russia, in what lawmakers and aides say is a message to President Donald Trump to reconsider his relaxed posture toward Moscow.

The legislation, which Trump was always expected to sign, includes restrictions that bar many federal agencies from engaging financially or otherwise with the Kremlin and its backers on a number of fronts. Lawmakers from both parties viewed those provisions and others as an opportunity to enshrine new punishments against Vladimir Putin's regime at a time when the Trump administration has taken heat for its refusal to immediately and fully implement mandatory sanctions and other punishments.

"Those [sanctions] were a good first step. But I do think that these newer sanctions hopefully put a little more bite to it. And frankly I think that's a good thing," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Daily Beast. "The Russians are guilty of bad behavior all over the world. And so we shouldn't be doing anything to encourage or condone that."

The new measures come as the White House faces renewed criticism over its handling of Russia. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that the president, against the advice of his top aides, congratulated Putin on winning re-election to another six-year term. He also did not press Putin on election-meddling or on the nerve-agent attack on a former Russian spy in the United Kingdom.

Multiple lawmakers and congressional sources from both parties said the new financial barriers aimed at punishing Russia are both robust and significant, and were crafted in light of Russia's continued aggression in eastern Europe and the Middle East in addition to the likelihood that the Kremlin tries to meddle in the 2018 midterm elections.

Democrats pointed to Trump's reluctance to publicly criticize Putin and speak out about Russia's activities, and said it was necessary for Congress to step in whenever possible to send the administration a message.

"With the appropriations bill, bipartisan majorities are once again sending the president tough new measures to push back on Russia and shore up our election system against future interference," Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Daily Beast. "It's time that the White House listens to Congress and uses the tools we've provided."


The spending bill bars the use of federal funds for "enter[ing] into new contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to, the Russian Federation," and allocates $250 million to the Countering Russian Influence Fund—a 150 percent increase from last year. Additionally, it authorizes significant new sanctions against Russia over its actions in eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Their origin, though, remains a mystery. While lawmakers were unsure who exactly inserted those measures into the 2,232-page spending bill, they said it represented a broad point of agreement among Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill in a policy area where Trump himself has, in their view, struggled.

"I think there is broad bipartisan concern that our president hasn't been active in pushing back against Russian aggression—either its meddling in our last election and likely meddling in our next election, or its aggression toward its neighbors like Ukraine, Georgia and its interference in Syria," Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told The Daily Beast.

Coons, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the language was "most likely added by senior senators who recognize that the Congress has acted forcefully and in a bipartisan way to demand sanctions and stronger action by the president and [we] have so far been largely disappointed. I think this is partly an effort of senior legislators from both parties to make progress on that."

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) described the spending bill as a "wheelbarrow" of Congress' priorities, and said he suspects the additional measures were included "in response to what's been going on up here," referring to mandatory sanctions against Russia that continue to receive bipartisan backing.

"Because it's an omnibus appropriations bill, that's the logical place for that type of language to be," Isakson said.

Despite Trump's apparent unwillingness to outwardly criticize Putin and Moscow's election-meddling practices, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have credited the Trump administration for taking actions against the Kremlin including a new lethal defensive weapons sale to Ukraine's military, which is defending itself against Russian-backed separatists.

The omnibus includes financial punishments against Russia over its annexation of Crimea, which the U.S. and its allies have condemned. The legislation also includes a five-page section titled "Countering Russian Influence and Aggression," which outlines specification prohibitions on federal dollars going to the Russian government.

Additionally, federal agencies are barred from directing financial assistance toward countries that are supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea. The bill also restricts federal agencies from investing in Crimea or other areas that the U.S. believes are under illegal control by Russia, and requires Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to direct Americans sitting on international financial boards to vote against any measure that funds programs which violate "the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine."

More broadly, the legislation directs funds toward "supporting democracy programs" in Russia including Internet freedom. It also allocates $380 million to the Election Assistance Commission to help states and localities improve their election infrastructure to guard it against cyberattacks. The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a series of recommendations this week on election security as part of its Russia investigation.

"It is reassuring that at least in this bill, we still have a bipartisan consensus with regard to national security issues," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) told The Daily Beast, speculating that Congress was aiming to "protect [Trump] from himself" by slipping in new punishments against Putin.

[crazy canuck]

The Canadian experience is similar - as far as our parties becoming deficit reduction crusaders in the 90s but we diverge when it comes to how the budgets were balanced and what followed.   Rather than slaying the deficit mainly through spending reduction we did it mainly through tax increases.  Once the budget was balanced we then entered a long period of balanced budgets, relative spending decreases or freezes and tax reduction.  That came to an end with the market meltdown in 2008 but bringing the books back into balance continued to be a primary plank in all our political party's platforms until the last federal election.  In that election the NDP (our most left leaning party) and the governing Conservatives continued to promise balanced budgets.  The Liberals effectively stole the vote from the NDP and kept enough of the middle by promising they would intentionally run deficits for a brief period of time to allow the economy to recover.  That was the turning point in the election and you now get to enjoy Trudeau dressing up in local costumes as he goes on his world tours.

But the problem for the Liberals is the Canadian economy recovered more quickly than was anticipated and the Liberals are still committed to deficit spending.  I suspect that the deficit issue is going to be the Liberal's largest obstacle to re-election (even greater than Trudeau's need to dress up )

Interesting, so in large part, he and his party are Tony Blair's new Labour?

In the Canadian context, more like the old Liberals of his father's generation.

Thanks for that.

But damn I'm old, I can even remember a bit of the Pierre Trudeau years, wasn't he at first seen as a breath of fresh air, but then got rather mired in various things, including the 2nd flourishing of Quebec nationalism???

And the son is following in his footsteps except without the intelligence of the father.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also, do these law podcast know what they're talking about?

What do they say?

I do think Cohen screwed up that case.

[jimmy olsen]

Also, do these law podcast know what they're talking about?

What do they say?

I do think Cohen screwed up that case.

I'm probably going to paraphrase this very badly, but bare with me.

Basically, he wrote the agreement so poorly, that the truth  that DD is Donald Trump is going to come out no matter what. And either Cohen is going to fall on his sword for felony campaign finance violations among other crimes (only some of which are pardonable) or implicate Trump as well.

[Eddie Teach]

Bear.

[dps]

Oh, those poor Korean students.

[garbon]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/380915-sessions-reveals-federal-prosecutor-investigating-fbi-allegations

Sessions declines to appoint second special counsel

Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed in a letter to lawmakers Thursday that he had declined to name a second special counsel to investigate allegations of surveillance abuse within the Department of Justice (DOJ), despite pressure from the Republican Party for him to do so.

In his letter to GOP committee chairmen Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Bob Goodlatte (Va.) and Trey Gowdy (S.C.), Sessions said the appointment of a special counsel only occurs under "the most 'extraordinary circumstances.' "

"To justify such an appointment, the Attorney General would need to conclude that 'the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from the Department of Justice,' " Sessions wrote.

He said he had named a federal prosecutor in Utah, John Huber, to lead the investigation into Republicans' allegations that the FBI and DOJ abused a surveillance program against a former Trump campaign aide.

"The additional matters raised in your March 6, 2018, letter fall within the scope of his existing mandate, and I am confident that Mr. Huber's review will include a full, complete, and objective evaluation of these matters in a manner that is consistent with the law and the facts," Sessions wrote.

Sessions said that upon completion of the investigation he would receive a recommendation from Huber about whether the allegations merit the need for another special counsel.

The letter comes amid mounting pressure from GOP lawmakers for Sessions to appoint a second counsel as Robert Mueller continues his own investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Sessions earlier this month said he had tapped a former official "with many years in the Department of Justice" to look into the need for another special counsel, as calls grew from the likes of Grassley, Gowdy and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to to look into the alleged surveillance abuses within the department.

His decision is likely to not sit well with President Trump, who has frequently criticized the attorney general over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

In his letter, Sessions also noted that he had directed the department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to open a probe into the allegations, an investigation that was formally announced on Wednesday. Trump has also been dismissive of the decision to put the department's watchdog in charge of the case.

"Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse," Trump tweeted earlier in March after Sessions announced Horowitz would be looking into the surveillance abuse allegations. "Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on [former FBI Director James] Comey etc. Isn't the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!"

The multiple investigations center on allegations from Republicans that the FBI and DOJ abused the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), which were the subject of a controversial memo authored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

The GOP lawmakers allege that investigators used information from the "Steele dossier," a controversial file of opposition research compiled by ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele, in order to obtain a politically motivated warrant for former Trump adviser Carter Page.

Huber has also been looking at whether the FBI should have more thoroughly probed Hillary Clinton's ties to Uranium One, a Russian nuclear energy agency.

Former President Obama appointed Huber to his position in 2015.

[derspiess]

bare with me.

No thanks.

[Jacob]

Bear.

[garbon]

Bear.

That was an innocent choice.

[The Brain]

Bear.

That was an innocent choice.

[derspiess]