Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

I assume that if it is about a sexual affair that threatens to embarrass the party seeking the NDA this is not the same as X having told Y he killed his wife paying Y to keep it secret via an NDA?

I think you're right. Even in Garfield's analysis, he discusses as an aspect of free speech, the importance of the information to the public dialogue. If it doesn't involve something to do with ethics but is simply prurient and embarrassing, the public policy/speech argument is weakened. There are still formation defenses that stand alone given the odd way in which the contract was executed.

[Stavros]

I think you're right. Even in Garfield's analysis, he discusses as an aspect of free speech, the importance of the information to the public dialogue. If it doesn't involve something to do with ethics but is simply prurient and embarrassing, the public policy/speech argument is weakened. There are still formation defenses that stand alone given the odd way in which the contract was executed.

I suspect that this is what the Supreme Court would say, but it seems to me there is another angle here. If you set aside whether someone felt forced into signing away their 1st Amendments rights on a matter that is not concerned with the breaking of the law, and that a Court would say they can do nothing about that, there is still the moral argument, that in effect, people with money are purchasing an exemption from justice.

In the case of Harvey Weinstein who may have broken the law -cases of rape and assault have not been proven in a court of law- it surely cannot be right that a man escapes the justice a court would have decided by writing a cheque and coercing the victim to sign an NDA? Again, in the case of David Dennison, given his form with a fake university it seems to me his attitude is simple: the rule of law does not apply to me, I pay to be exempt from it. Most people do not have David Dennison's money and can't buy their way out of traffic violations or the consequences of running corrupt businesses, whereas he can, and does.

This to me shows such contempt for the due process of law it is hardly surprising that the man trumpets his glee when an FBI officer with 21 years service is sacked days before his retirement to deny him a pension, even though no case against the man has been made in a court of law and the officer concerned has proved that the President and his staff have lied about him leaking to the press.

When the rule of law no longer applies, or can be bought by those with the most money, democracy itself becomes a secondary thing, a nuisance to be avoided.

[broncofan]

Today Trey Gowdy, a Republican congressman who is not running for re-election, said to Trump's personal lawyer John Dowd, "if you have an innocent client Mr. Dowd, act like it." The only reason he had the gumption to make this statement is because he will not have to face the consequences during re-election. Every Republican knows that they cannot tell the truth about the President without becoming the object of his ire and dealing with his abuse online.

Yet it's still surprising to me that more of them have not stood up to him regardless of the consequences. Whether Mueller ends up getting fired or connecting Donald Trump to criminality, history will not be kind to him or anyone who stood by while he tried to dismantle the rule of law in this country. The best case scenario for Trump is that multiple associates of his committed crimes and he himself is only guilty of many impeachable acts of obstruction, from pressuring Sessions, to threatening Rosenstein, to firing Comey, to this extremely troubling and transparent campaign against McCabe. Even if it were a purely careerist move, in the long run, telling the truth about Trump would seem like the better bet. Ten years from now, how will this era be seen with the full perspective of hindsight?

Here's what our former CIA head had to say https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/stat...78856997224448

[Stavros]

I understand that libel laws are different in the US and that there is something called 'malicious libel' -but isn't this an example of malicious libel, and why doesn't Comey do something other than write book?

Trump tweeted: “Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to Senator G when asked ‘have you ever been an anonymous source … or known someone else to be an anonymous source...?’ He said strongly ‘never, no.’ He lied as shown clearly on @foxandfriends.”

Trump was evidently watching his favourite Fox News show. Earlier, magazine show Fox & Friends played an exchange from a 3 May 2017 congressional hearing in which Comey was questioned by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley.

Grassley asked: “Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”
Comey said: “Never.”

Grassley: “Question two, and relatively related: have you ever authorised someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”
Comey: “No.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ames-comey-fbi

[buttslinger]

I have a hunch that the Intelligence agencies and Congress pretty much know exactly what's going on, but so what, how do you FIX it? Who do you tell? Certainly not the People.
Comey and Gowdy, they both despise Hillary and think Trump should be hanged for treason. Maybe they're right.
It's like the American Indians say "White man speaks with forked tongue"
Economics triggered Mexicans in the US and Muslims in Europe, Death and Taxes are inevitable, in the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun?
Things are supposed to be fucked up. Too many moving parts.

[buttslinger]

I forgot to thank Bronc for the Brennan tweet, yeah, what he said.
Obama warned Trump about two things: Mike Flynn and Kim Jong-un.
One shoe has dropped.........
Did you know only 15 haircuts are allowed in North Korea?
I went to school with Iranians, I joke with the Pakistanis at the 7-11, but I've never seen a North Korean in my life. I think, just like in the cartoons, when Trump orders the firing squad to shoot Mueller, they'll all turn around and shoot him, and we'll let the chips fall where they may, but God help us all if Trump handles Korea like he handled Flynn.....
I gotta get me one'a dem haircuts.

[sukumvit boy]

[buttslinger]

I guess it's good every so often to look at the bright side, at least we don't live in North Korea.
If you Bitch there, the next day, you're not there. 100% approval record.
But if Trump makes a surprise move and names Bolton as Secretary of State, and you notice I'm not posting anymore, please donate to a Charity of your choice in lieu of Flowers.

[filghy2]

Yet it's still surprising to me that more of them have not stood up to him regardless of the consequences. Whether Mueller ends up getting fired or connecting Donald Trump to criminality, history will not be kind to him or anyone who stood by while he tried to dismantle the rule of law in this country.

The problem is that the one-third of the country who still support Trump and refuse to believe anything bad about him is the majority of Republican voters. Even if an individual member of congress might increase their chances in a general election by turning against Trump it is unlikely they would survive a primary challenge. Also, having hitched their wagon to Trump thus far, there is no way the Republican party can abandon him at this stage without being dragged down with him.

[broncofan]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/18/us/au...ion/index.html

In Austin Texas there have been three package bombs delivered to people that have killed two and injured one. The victims have been either black or hispanic and it looks like there's a strong chance that it is a racially motivated terrorist attack. It has started to garner national attention but initially it was drowned out by everything that is going on with the Trump administration.

It appears that the FBI is taking it seriously which is good news. Afterall, they are an organization that does not depend on political forces to do their job. There are some questions in my view about the commitment of Sessions who thought the biggest priority of his Justice Department civil rights group was to tackle affirmative action. And of course the President has not taken a leadership role on this and to my knowledge has not issued a statement. Given the nature of these attacks, he should assure the public that it is a priority and everything is being done to put an end to the attacks and catch the perpetrators.