That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
It's maybe 2-3 posts a year at this point but he still shows up sometimes.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:08 pmBut does he? I haven't seen a post of his in a loooong time.
Maybe I'm not reading the threads he posts in, though.
Casual curious search says twice this year and three times last year, so you nailed it.coopasonic wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:55 pm It's maybe 2-3 posts a year at this point but he still shows up sometimes.
Federal prosecutors filed three briefs late on Friday portending grave danger for three men: former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, and President Donald J. Trump. In an age when Americans usually get mere squibs of breaking news from Twitter and Facebook and red-faced cable shouters, many started their weekends poring over complex legal filings and peering suspiciously at blacked-out paragraphs. The documents were stunning, even for 2018.
Most significant, the Special Counsel indicates Cohen “described the circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries, while continuing to accept responsibility for the false statements within it.” That statement suggests that the Special Counsel believes that someone in the Trump administration knew of, and approved in advance, Cohen’s lies to Congress. That’s explosive, and potentially impeachable if Trump himself is implicated.
I finally got a new MP3 player and have been catching up. This is a really, really good podcast.stessier wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:54 pm Does anyone else listen to the All the President's Lawyers podcast? I recently started and I've run into a bug where the podcast plays fine until what sounds like the first commercial break. At that point, my MP3 player says the file is unreadable. I've tried 4 different weeks and it's happened to all of them. I download the podcasts through iTunes.
I've enjoyed what I've heard but I've never really heard him finish making a point.
They do note that he has written pieces on Popehat. Although that is also not an indicator that the two are actually friends, as some are trying to say.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:34 am Lawyers routinely accept a scumbags as clients. It's kind of their job and not always an accurate indicator of the lawyers' moral compass.
This. Though I know nothing about Randazza, so I got nothing but a little bit of morbid curiosity.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:46 amThey do note that he has written pieces on Popehat. Although that is also not an indicator that the two are actually friends, as some are trying to say.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:34 am Lawyers routinely accept a scumbags as clients. It's kind of their job and not always an accurate indicator of the lawyers' moral compass.
I don't know anything about Randazza except from what I've read of his pieces on Popehat. But a person can be friends with people who end up doing bad things without being a bad person themselves. As for the legal representation, lawyers lawyer...it's why the system works.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:46 amThey do note that he has written pieces on Popehat. Although that is also not an indicator that the two are actually friends, as some are trying to say.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:34 am Lawyers routinely accept a scumbags as clients. It's kind of their job and not always an accurate indicator of the lawyers' moral compass.
Nah, Randazza is a good 1st Amendment Lawyer, as best I can tell. He also doesn't appear to have too much of a moral compass, but he does share some of Fed's libertarian (small 'l') leanings/distrust of government over-reach.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:51 pm I just want to say that I found Randazza obnoxious on popehat and avoided his posts. I got the feeling that popehat was trying to "both sides" the issues whenever Randazza posted. The idea that Ken is in jeopardy because of Randazza is hilarious though. I mean, anything is possible, but that would be a major traumatic event in my world view, that's how unlikely I think it is.
They said Mr. Fed could dunk! LOL!
Nobody would ever describe Michael Avenatti as circumspect. But this month, the outspoken lawyer, Donald Trump adversary, and media enthusiast appears to have achieved historic levels of recklessness, culminating in the FBI arresting him Monday morning in the lavish Manhattan offices of the power firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. In a dramatic reversal of fortune, the man who made the president of the United States and his fixer abandon enforcement of a sordid hush-money agreement found himself charged with serious federal crimes in both New York and Los Angeles. True to form, he seems to have talked his way there, and is trying to talk his way out again.
Michael Avenatti feels things fiercely and speaks them forcefully. Earlier this month, he called me at work to blast me for writing unflattering things about him. I’m not so special; he occasionally yells at journalists, media personalities, and lawyers, who then share their experiences on social media. He spent most of the rather surreal call swearing at me and decrying me as a loser and a nobody who would never achieve what he has. This is arguable. Though my mouth gets me in trouble on a regular basis, it has not, as of this date, gotten me charged with federal crimes on both coasts.
Arguments before the United States Court of Appeals are usually dry, esoteric, and nerdy. What would it take to make one go viral? This week, in a clip that launched a million angry Facebook posts, we found out. It took a lawyer for the United States telling a panel of incredulous Ninth Circuit judges that it is “safe and sanitary” to confine immigrant children in facilities without soap or toothbrushes and to make them sleep on concrete floors under bright lights.
This assertion generated widespread outrage. Sarah Fabian, the senior attorney in the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation who uttered it, was instantly excoriated online. As fate would have it, the clip of her argument went viral at the same time as a new wave of reports of brutal and inhumane conditions at immigrant confinement centers. It also immediately followed the raucous debate over Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referring to the confinement centers as concentration camps. The juxtaposition suggested, misleadingly, that the Trump administration was explicitly justifying the worst sorts of child mistreatment we were seeing on the news.
The truth is more complex, but still appalling. The sheer effrontery of the government’s argument may be explained, but not excused, by its long backstory.
It is right and fit to condemn the Trump administration for its argument and its treatment of children. But it’s wrong to think the problem can be cured with a presidential election. Trump will depart; the problem will not depart with him. This administration is merely the latest one to subject immigrant children to abusive conditions. It’s been 35 years since Jenny Flores was strip searched in an adult facility. Before Sarah Fabian defended concrete floors and bright lights for President Trump, she defended putting kids in solitary confinement for President Obama.
The fault lies not with any one administration or politician, but with the culture: the ICE and CBP culture that encourages the abuse, the culture of the legal apologists who defend it, and our culture—a largely indifferent America that hasn’t done a damn thing about it. This stain on America’s soul will not wash out with an election cycle. It will only change when Americans demand that the government treat the least of us as both the law and our values require—and firmly maintain that demand no matter how we feel about the party in power.
