LaxPower Back-Up Stick

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:37 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:24 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:22 am Riveting discussion.
The ol' lax forum sure aint what she used to be.

Certain LP moderators who shall not be named prohibited any discussion of Trump’s racism, purportedly to avoid upsetting certain members of the LP readership (presumably, the racists).

Is it even possible to discuss Trump without discussing his racism?

I appreciated all the work the LP folks put into what was once the leading discussion forum for college lacrosse. Having said that, their indulgence of the racists in the lacrosse community was simply disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Geezuz H, Doc, you blew that comment up into something that it wasn't at all.
I simply meant there were a whole lot more people, quite a few really bright ones too, who you could have a reasonable, entertaining, and maybe even educational discussion with. Not so much anymore.

Well, “opening the door” is a common law legal doctrine (albeit, not at all universally accepted) that permits entry of evidence into trial that may have been previously inadmissible.

You opened the door ... I just shoved it wide open and walked in.

By the way, when is dinner served? I prefer to dine early with a late-night snack. Thanks.

DocBarrister

Well, you're phukt on the dinner part, just had my second ever bison burger (not worth the price but not bad stuff) with baby bella mushrooms and a slice of swiss on it on marble rye, mashed potatoes (little sour cream and cream cheese in there) and some cauliflower. Pretty tasty all in all. Got some of those parmesan flavored gold fish (got some cheddar ones too) that might be good for nibbling on later...good for the munchies, ya know.

Trump’s disparaging of the military really isn’t a big deal because very few active or retired military live in North Carolina.

Wait, you say there actually are over a million military voters in NC? And that doesn’t include their families?

Well, North Carolina isn’t important to Trump’s reelection. Pete says he is going to win California which will more than make up for those losers and suckers in the Tarheel state.

Why is Joe Biden going to win? Several reasons at least, but the biggest one may be Donald Trump’s mouth.

Any doubt that this won’t be the last asinine thing he says before November 3?

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:44 pm Trump’s disparaging of the military really isn’t a big deal because very few active or retired military live in North Carolina.

Wait, you say there actually are over a million military voters in NC? And that doesn’t include their families?

Well, North Carolina isn’t important to Trump’s reelection. Pete says he is going to win California which will more than make up for those losers and suckers in the Tarheel state.

Why is Joe Biden going to win? Several reasons at least, but the biggest one may be Donald Trump’s mouth.

Any doubt that this won’t be the last asinine thing he says before November 3?

Just tonight he has said:

1. He wants pro-crime judges.
2. Mexicans will pay for the wall because they will be charged tolls at the border to come across ("toll booths" is what he termed the border processing stations).

He, as always, is off his rocker.

In a highly unusual legal maneuver, the Department of Justice moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private lawyers and defend him against a defamation lawsuit brought in a New York state court by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.

Lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended in court by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/nyre ... e=Homepage

Not only is this an outrageous attempt by Trump to have taxpayers pay his legal bills, it’s also another sign of how thoroughly Trump and AG Barr have corrupted the Department of Justice.

In addition, Donald Trump has refused to hand over a DNA sample. If Trump’s denials of raping Ms. Carroll are true, the DNA sample would help to exonerate him and defeat Ms. Carroll’s defamation suit. Telling that Trump has refused.

DocBarrister

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:58 pm Well, you're phukt on the dinner part, just had my second ever bison burger (not worth the price but not bad stuff) with baby bella mushrooms and a slice of swiss on it on marble rye, mashed potatoes (little sour cream and cream cheese in there) and some cauliflower. Pretty tasty all in all. Got some of those parmesan flavored gold fish (got some cheddar ones too) that might be good for nibbling on later...good for the munchies, ya know.

This is outrageous and completely unacceptable.

I suppose you will next tell me that there will be no Amontillado aperitif and no Porto for dessert.

Thus vanishes the thin veneer of civilization ....

DocBarrister

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:21 pm In a highly unusual legal maneuver, the Department of Justice moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private lawyers and defend him against a defamation lawsuit brought in a New York state court by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.

Lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended in court by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/nyre ... e=Homepage

Not only is this an outrageous attempt by Trump to have taxpayers pay his legal bills, it’s also another sign of how thoroughly Trump and AG Barr have corrupted the Department of Justice.

In addition, Donald Trump has refused to hand over a DNA sample. If Trump’s denials of raping Ms. Carroll are true, the DNA sample would help to exonerate him and defeat Ms. Carroll’s defamation suit. Telling that Trump has refused.

DocBarrister

It is indeed outrageous.

The attorney who filed the pleading should be referred to the state bar for discipline for filing a false document in court.

The DOJ IG should launch an immediate investigation.

It’s not clear to me whether this filing automatically removes the case to federal court, as would a notice of removal in a diversity case, or whether the state court retains any jurisdiction to rule on this false pleading.

If the case is automatically removed, then it will be assigned to a federal judge based on the wheel. Don’t know, but I suspect that judge could entertain a motion to remand, similar to the type of motion that would be filed in, e.g., a diversity case.

I suspect Trump knows he is going to lose this latest gambit as it is utterly without legal basis, but he hopes to drag things out until after November 3.

What Trump wants to avoid is the DNA test which he was going to have to give in the state court proceeding very soon. Well before the election, I think. He knows the test will prove a match and does not want that information to come out before the election.

Assuming there is a match, he could try to argue consent. But that will be difficult to sell given his complete denials to date.

This is really a desperate move on his part.

Based on the way he was treated by the media, & then by Trump, it is not surprising that he just wants to be left alone.
He never wanted to play these political/media gotcha games.

Nah.

Did you ignore what I posted above? Kelly's interview where he talks about how voters need to focus more on the character and ethics of those up for election? Which interview, just by chance, was with...wait for it...The Mooch!! Kelly's views on Trump are quite clear -- and he has been clear, but low key, about expressing those views.

Kelly is being silent for one obvious reason. He does not want to out the anonymous sources. Who are people he knows and agrees with.

He's supporting them by keeping silent -- their identities remain confidential and his silence is a strong confirmatory signal of the veracity of their stories.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:40 pm Time will tell, Salty, but if he wanted to refute it or Dunford wanted to refute it, it would be simple to do so. Perhaps the only reason they're not confirming it is this BS 'code of silence', but let's assume that's the issue, not that they're 'cowards' as some on these threads have suggested (which seems ridiculous to me).

Lots of reporters, from all kinds of angles, have now confirmed that the sources are real, truly were senior officials who were there and would know, and they all tell a common story and set of stories...and then we have Trump himself in the raw. Including yesterday.

Man, you guys so don't get it. Kelly & Dunford do. BS code of silence. Tell them they're cowards.

Dunford said his philosophy is to “behave in public the same way I did while on active duty. ... I feel I should not engage in any partisan politics.”

The implications of any public comment on the president and his administration, he said, could complicate the job of Army General Mark Milley, his successor as Joint Chiefs chair and another Massachusetts native.

“I’ve got to let the chairman be the chairman, and there can be only one chairman,” Dunford said.

After a pause, he smiled and repeated a quote from Army General Omar Bradley, a hero of World War II: “The best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions.”

The sources are real -- the same 4 anonymous cowards who won't go on the record.
Bolton said that FNC's Griffin is wrong about who was in the room, because he was there.
He totally destroys Goldberg's reporting about how & why the trip was canceled.
It's the DC 2nd & 3rd hand hearsay telephone game.

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:24 pm

Based on the way he was treated by the media, & then by Trump, it is not surprising that he just wants to be left alone.
He never wanted to play these political/media gotcha games.

Nah.

Did you ignore what I posted above? Kelly's interview where he talks about how voters need to focus more on the character and ethics of those up for election? Which interview, just by chance, was with...wait for it...The Mooch!! Kelly's views on Trump are quite clear -- and he has been clear, but low key, about expressing those views.

Kelly is being silent for one obvious reason. He does not want to out the anonymous sources. Who are people he knows and agrees with.

He's supporting them by keeping silent -- their identities remain confidential and his silence is a strong confirmatory signal of the veracity of their stories.

No I didn't ignore it. I had previously listened to the entire 45 min interview, not just the mini-snippet that you, CNN & the Guardian lifted totally out of context & distorted to support your narrative. Listen to the entire 45 min interview (esp the first 20 min) & you'll see why I doubt that Kelly took any part in this partisan circle jerk.

In response to the Mooch's repeated, probing questions, he gave general answers which agreed with the retired flag officers who spoke out about the potential use of active duty military during the siege of Laf Park & the WH, & he answered in support of his friend Mattis. It is hardly the full throated criticism of Trump as it has been depicted.

Kelly has developed an interesting relationship with the Mooch since he fired him. This is the 2nd year he's given a lengthy interview at the Mooch's SALT conference. I recommend his superficial critics listen to the entire 45 min interview before trying to speak on his behalf.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:02 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:21 pm In a highly unusual legal maneuver, the Department of Justice moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private lawyers and defend him against a defamation lawsuit brought in a New York state court by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.

Lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended in court by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/nyre ... e=Homepage

Not only is this an outrageous attempt by Trump to have taxpayers pay his legal bills, it’s also another sign of how thoroughly Trump and AG Barr have corrupted the Department of Justice.

In addition, Donald Trump has refused to hand over a DNA sample. If Trump’s denials of raping Ms. Carroll are true, the DNA sample would help to exonerate him and defeat Ms. Carroll’s defamation suit. Telling that Trump has refused.

DocBarrister

It is indeed outrageous.

The attorney who filed the pleading should be referred to the state bar for discipline for filing a false document in court.

The DOJ IG should launch an immediate investigation.

It’s not clear to me whether this filing automatically removes the case to federal court, as would a notice of removal in a diversity case, or whether the state court retains any jurisdiction to rule on this false pleading.

If the case is automatically removed, then it will be assigned to a federal judge based on the wheel. Don’t know, but I suspect that judge could entertain a motion to remand, similar to the type of motion that would be filed in, e.g., a diversity case.

I suspect Trump knows he is going to lose this latest gambit as it is utterly without legal basis, but he hopes to drag things out until after November 3.

What Trump wants to avoid is the DNA test which he was going to have to give in the state court proceeding very soon. Well before the election, I think. He knows the test will prove a match and does not want that information to come out before the election.

Assuming there is a match, he could try to argue consent. But that will be difficult to sell given his complete denials to date.

This is really a desperate move on his part.

I just don't think people understand what Barr has done to the DOJ. Here is the Motion to Substitute:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... emoval.pdf

It is very brief, and seems to stretch the notion of "acting within the scope of official duties" to its limit. He was President when he allegedly defamed Ms. Carroll, so the interview was official business and the United States (that's us, kinda) has to defend the lawsuit as the party defendant. Be interesting to see what the cases cited in support have to say.

Here is the Times's reporting on this:

"The Justice Department moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private legal team with government lawyers to defend him against a defamation lawsuit by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.

In a highly unusual legal move, lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

Though the law gives employees of the federal government immunity from most defamation lawsuits, legal experts said it has rarely, if ever, been used before to protect a president, especially for actions taken before he entered office.

“The question is,” said Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, “is it really within the scope of the law for government lawyers to defend someone accused of lying about a rape when he wasn’t even president yet?”

The motion also effectively protects Mr. Trump from any embarrassing disclosures in the middle of his campaign for re-election. A state judge issued a ruling last month that potentially opened the door to Mr. Trump being deposed in the case before the election in November, and Ms. Carroll’s lawyers have also requested that he provide a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress that Ms. Carroll said she was wearing at the time of the encounter.

Ms. Carroll’s lawyer said in a statement issued Tuesday evening that the Justice Department’s move to intervene in the case was a “shocking” attempt to bring the resources of the United States government to bear on a private legal matter.

“Trump’s effort to wield the power of the U.S. government to evade responsibility for his private misconduct is without precedent,” the lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, said, “and shows even more starkly how far he is willing to go to prevent the truth from coming out.”

Ms. Carroll herself accused the president of siccing Attorney General William P. Barr against her. “TRUMP HURLS BILL BARR AT ME,” she wrote on Twitter.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on the motion.

Citing a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, the department lawyers asserted the right to take the case from Mr. Trump’s private lawyers and move the matter from state court to federal court.

The government filing was yet another attempt by Mr. Trump to stall the defamation case, Ms. Kaplan said, noting that he had used the tactic several times in Ms. Carroll’s suit and other legal matters.

“Trump’s strategy in this case from Day 1 has been delay, delay, and more delay,” Ms. Kaplan said, adding, “Our job is to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Ms. Carroll sued Mr. Trump last November, claiming that he lied by publicly denying he had ever met her. A longtime columnist for Elle magazine, she wrote in a book excerpt published in New York magazine in June 2019 that Mr. Trump had thrown her up against the wall of a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, an upscale department store in Manhattan, in late 1995 or early 1996. Then, she claimed, Mr. Trump pulled down her tights, opened his pants and forced himself on her. She also insisted that security cameras captured both of them moving together before the alleged assault inside the store.

In her suit, Ms. Carroll accused Mr. Trump of defaming her by publicly stating in an interview with The Hill newspaper in June 2019 in the Oval Office that the assault never happened and that he could not have raped her because she was “not my type.” Mr. Trump, according to Ms. Carroll’s suit, also issued an official statement that same month saying she was lying about the alleged assault.

Mr. Trump said he had never met Ms. Carroll, but the two were photographed together at a party in 1987 with her former husband. The president has called the image misleading.

More than a dozen women have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct that they said took place before he was elected president.

Mr. Trump’s private lawyers sought to have Ms. Carroll’s suit dismissed by arguing that the Constitution gave a sitting president immunity against civil suits in state court.

The department’s request to represent Mr. Trump in the case is in keeping with other arguments that the president has made in state court in New York, said Ben Berwick, a former Justice Department lawyer who now works at Protect Democracy, a legal group that is involved in multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration.

“The president has argued in multiple cases that he is immune from civil lawsuits in state courts, and at every turn that argument has been rejected,” Mr. Berwick said. The president has fought cases in New York against his company and his foundation, among other matters.

But Justice Verna L. Saunders of State Supreme Court in Manhattan recently rejected those arguments, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found Mr. Trump could not block a subpoena for his tax returns by the Manhattan prosecutors.

A White House official said Tuesday night that precedent existed under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the Justice Department to step in and defend Mr. Trump in the newly chosen venue: the Federal District Court in Manhattan. Ms. Carroll’s case will immediately be moved to federal court and her lawyers will have to ask a judge there to return the matter to state court.

The closest similar case came in 2005, Mr. Vladeck said, when a federal court in Washington ruled that government lawyers could defend Cass Ballenger, then a Republican representative from North Carolina, in a defamation lawsuit brought against him by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Mr. Vladeck said that while it was fairly uncommon for the Justice Department to assume the defense of a private matter on behalf of any government official, it was even more extraordinary for department lawyers to seek to shield Mr. Trump’s personal behavior behind a screen of “sovereign immunity.” If the federal judge in Manhattan assigned to the case agreed with the department’s arguments, Ms. Carroll’s lawsuit would effectively be over, Mr. Vladeck said.

Some current and former Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, echoed Mr. Vladeck’s concerns, saying they were stunned that the department had been asked to defend Mr. Trump in Ms. Carroll’s case. By moving to take control of the matter, the department had raised a critical question, the lawyers said: Was it truly within the scope of a president’s duties to comment on the physical appearance of a woman who had accused him of rape?

But rare as it was to use the Federal Tort Claims Act in this way, it was hardly the first time that Mr. Trump’s Justice Department stretched legal norms on his behalf.

Last year, for example, Mr. Barr gave a public summary of the findings of Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation that a federal judge later called “distorted” and “misleading.”

Mr. Barr’s department also intervened in the criminal case of Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, requesting to drop the prosecution — a move that a federal judge has held up while he is scrutinizing it."

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:52 am

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:02 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:21 pm In a highly unusual legal maneuver, the Department of Justice moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private lawyers and defend him against a defamation lawsuit brought in a New York state court by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.

Lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended in court by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/nyre ... e=Homepage

Not only is this an outrageous attempt by Trump to have taxpayers pay his legal bills, it’s also another sign of how thoroughly Trump and AG Barr have corrupted the Department of Justice.

In addition, Donald Trump has refused to hand over a DNA sample. If Trump’s denials of raping Ms. Carroll are true, the DNA sample would help to exonerate him and defeat Ms. Carroll’s defamation suit. Telling that Trump has refused.

DocBarrister

It is indeed outrageous.

The attorney who filed the pleading should be referred to the state bar for discipline for filing a false document in court.

The DOJ IG should launch an immediate investigation.

It’s not clear to me whether this filing automatically removes the case to federal court, as would a notice of removal in a diversity case, or whether the state court retains any jurisdiction to rule on this false pleading.

If the case is automatically removed, then it will be assigned to a federal judge based on the wheel. Don’t know, but I suspect that judge could entertain a motion to remand, similar to the type of motion that would be filed in, e.g., a diversity case.

I suspect Trump knows he is going to lose this latest gambit as it is utterly without legal basis, but he hopes to drag things out until after November 3.

What Trump wants to avoid is the DNA test which he was going to have to give in the state court proceeding very soon. Well before the election, I think. He knows the test will prove a match and does not want that information to come out before the election.

Assuming there is a match, he could try to argue consent. But that will be difficult to sell given his complete denials to date.

This is really a desperate move on his part.

I just don't think people understand what Barr has done to the DOJ. Here is the Motion to Substitute:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... emoval.pdf

It is very brief, and seems to stretch the notion of "acting within the scope of official duties" to its limit. He was President when he allegedly defamed Ms. Carroll, so the interview was official business and the United States (that's us, kinda) has to defend the lawsuit as the party defendant. Be interesting to see what the cases cited in support have to say.

Another reason to get to Trump’s tax returns: the curiosity of finding out his attorney costs, and comparing that to his industry’s standard. The only question to that is would the comparison be made to commercial real estate developers or to crime syndicates.

If you are stopping in at the Nerd Bar for a drink later today, you can read this about the Westfall Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-167.ZO.html

This work of art will win a major award:






Sculpture of trump made with 100% bull sh*t.

If I were the federal judge, I would schedule a hearing for today. My first question would be, why have you waited until now to remove the case? The case was filed a year ago. Why didn’t you immediately claim that this tort was committed within the scope of Trump’s duties as president? If the doctrine of waiver applies, I would look long and hard at its applicability here.

The next phase of the hearing would involve an inquiry into the merits of Barr’s claim that Trump was acting within the scope of his presidential duties when he defamed Carroll. I would put Barr to his proofs. At the conclusion of the hearing, I would rule he hadn’t carried his burden and would remind the case to state court.

I would also refer the matter to the applicable state bars to discipline the lawyers who prepared and filed the false pleadings.

It is really a sad day for the Justice Department and the legal profession that there are government lawyers who are willing to participate in this fraud upon the court. When I worked in DC, I knew a lot of government lawyers, including some who worked for Justice. I can’t imagine any of them getting within 1,000,000 miles of this fraud.

Then, if I were the state court judge, I would order Trump to give the DNA sample by September 20. He has been wrongly dragging his heels on that for months. If he doesn’t comply with that deadline, I would default him on liability.

I would dismiss out of hand any claim by Trump that he is “too busy.” All he is doing these days is campaigning and playing golf. Neither involve presidential duties. The test takes only a few minutes. While it should be performed on national TV, it could be done in the privacy of his own bathroom at the White House, next to his make up supply and hairspray. He can wear his girdle if he wants.

Trump no doubt would accept the default and deal with the adverse publicity rather than provide a DNA sample which likely would be a match, thereby proving Carroll’s rape claim.

Trump and Barr know exactly what they are doing here. They know there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that they will prevail on this, but think there is a decent shot they will be able to delay the DNA test until after the election. Shameful.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:23 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:24 pm

Based on the way he was treated by the media, & then by Trump, it is not surprising that he just wants to be left alone.
He never wanted to play these political/media gotcha games.

Nah.

Did you ignore what I posted above? Kelly's interview where he talks about how voters need to focus more on the character and ethics of those up for election? Which interview, just by chance, was with...wait for it...The Mooch!! Kelly's views on Trump are quite clear -- and he has been clear, but low key, about expressing those views.

Kelly is being silent for one obvious reason. He does not want to out the anonymous sources. Who are people he knows and agrees with.

He's supporting them by keeping silent -- their identities remain confidential and his silence is a strong confirmatory signal of the veracity of their stories.

No I didn't ignore it. I had previously listened to the entire 45 min interview, not just the mini-snippet that you, CNN & the Guardian lifted totally out of context & distorted to support your narrative. Listen to the entire 45 min interview (esp the first 20 min) & you'll see why I doubt that Kelly took any part in this partisan circle jerk.

In response to the Mooch's repeated, probing questions, he gave general answers which agreed with the retired flag officers who spoke out about the potential use of active duty military during the siege of Laf Park & the WH, & he answered in support of his friend Mattis. It is hardly the full throated criticism of Trump as it has been depicted.

Kelly has developed an interesting relationship with the Mooch since he fired him. This is the 2nd year he's given a lengthy interview at the Mooch's SALT conference. I recommend his superficial critics listen to the entire 45 min interview before trying to speak on his behalf.

ggait -- subsequent to the above post, when reviewing my dvr cache, I stumbled upon the Mooch's appearance yesterday on MTP Daily on MSNBC.

Are you basing your assessment on that ? It was a very revealing interview into the PSYOP that the Mooch is running, with MSNBC as his cable news outlet.

He & Chuck Todd were remarkably casual about what they're up to. Mooch laments that he hasn't been able to get Kelly to drop a safe on Trump, because that would finish him.

He reveals there's more to come, not just from fellow spurned former Trumper Michael Cohen, but also from others "in the military".

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:58 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:23 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:24 pm

Based on the way he was treated by the media, & then by Trump, it is not surprising that he just wants to be left alone.
He never wanted to play these political/media gotcha games.

Nah.

Did you ignore what I posted above? Kelly's interview where he talks about how voters need to focus more on the character and ethics of those up for election? Which interview, just by chance, was with...wait for it...The Mooch!! Kelly's views on Trump are quite clear -- and he has been clear, but low key, about expressing those views.

Kelly is being silent for one obvious reason. He does not want to out the anonymous sources. Who are people he knows and agrees with.

He's supporting them by keeping silent -- their identities remain confidential and his silence is a strong confirmatory signal of the veracity of their stories.

No I didn't ignore it. I had previously listened to the entire 45 min interview, not just the mini-snippet that you, CNN & the Guardian lifted totally out of context & distorted to support your narrative. Listen to the entire 45 min interview (esp the first 20 min) & you'll see why I doubt that Kelly took any part in this partisan circle jerk.

In response to the Mooch's repeated, probing questions, he gave general answers which agreed with the retired flag officers who spoke out about the potential use of active duty military during the siege of Laf Park & the WH, & he answered in support of his friend Mattis. It is hardly the full throated criticism of Trump as it has been depicted.

Kelly has developed an interesting relationship with the Mooch since he fired him. This is the 2nd year he's given a lengthy interview at the Mooch's SALT conference. I recommend his superficial critics listen to the entire 45 min interview before trying to speak on his behalf.

ggait -- subsequent to the above post, when reviewing my dvr cache, I stumbled upon the Mooch's appearance yesterday on MTP Daily on MSNBC.

Are you basing your assessment on that ? It was a very revealing interview into the PSYOP that the Mooch is running, with MSNBC as his cable news outlet.

He & Chuck Todd were remarkably casual about what they're up to. Mooch laments that he hasn't been able to get Kelly to drop a safe on Trump, because that would finish him.

He reveals there's more to come, not just from fellow spurned former Trumper Michael Cohen, but also from others "in the military".

OS: you are giving way too much credibility to Mooch, who by his own admission is a big-mouthed car salesman. Mooch got in over his head, still there, paddling hard to stay relevant. Not an intellect. Not a player. Be careful giving him too much credence.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:27 amOS: you are giving way too much credibility to Mooch, who by his own admission is a big-mouthed car salesman. Mooch got in over his head, still there, paddling hard to stay relevant. Not an intellect. Not a player. Be careful giving him too much credence.

I agree that the Mooch is a self-promoting legend in his own mind. He is all the things he accuses Trump of being, but wasn't able to pull it off.
He's just another suck up who thought Trump was his ticket to the big time, but he couldn't go 12 days without self-immolating.

Nonetheless, he has a cable news outlet at his disposal, some msm lackeys, & anonymous cowards in the Pentagon (now or recent) who are too afraid of the Hatch Act or diminishing their future opportunities to go on the record with their slime job.

I'll rely on Trump's public statements, including from this week, to base my assessment as to the likely veracity of these reports.

Way too much evidence of disrespect, and even contempt, for military service to not find these statements made more privately to be entirely plausible.

The flailing around to defend who Trump really is remains just noise by the apologists and cultists.