Posts Tagged ‘ATTORNEYS’
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ASHLEY STROHMIER, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, HUFFINGTON POST, HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES COMER, JAMES COMEY, JAMIE RASKIN, JIM JORDAN, JOSEPH BIDEN, JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LETITIA JAMES, MAR-A-LAGO, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RACHEL MADDOW, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 26, 2023 at 12:10 am
Two suggestions for interviewees with a dark secret to hide:
First: Don’t give interviews to journalists you like. (Or, in the case of Fox News, pseudo-journalists.)
Second: Don’t give interviews at 4 A.M.
Why?
Because you’re less likely to be on guard with a friendly journalist—and thus reveal truths you will later regret spilling.
And because at 4 A.M. you’re likely so tired or keyed up you make the same mistake.
Part One of this series spotlighted such a slip-up by Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield, CA) on September 30, 2015.
In just 51 words, McCarthy revealed that the House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body. Its real purpose was to sabotage the expected Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
In doing so, McCarthy unintentionally sabotaged his own chances of becoming Speaker of the House when the then-Speaker, John Boehner, retired
Part Two of this series showed how Donald Trump made a similar mistake on September 21, 2022.
Appearing on the Right’s favorite television network, Fox News, Trump thoroughly embarrassed himself.
He was facing investigation for illegally removing classified government documents when he left the White House on January 20, 2021, and storing them at his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida.
Once again, Trump asserted he had done nothing wrong: “If you’re the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it, because you’re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you’re sending it.”
Not only was this blatantly untrue, it was so outlandish that late-night talk show hosts had a comedic field day with it.
And still Republican politicians refuse to learn.
Latest case in point: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY).
James Comer
Comer made the same mistake as McCarthy and Trump—letting the public in on an embarrassing secret—with an added twist. He did so at 4 A.M. on May 22.
Speaking—you guessed it—on Fox News, Comer unintentionally admitted weaponizing his investigative committee to aid Donald Trump’s Presidential ambitions.
Fox News host Ashley Strohmier threw out a comforting softball question: “We have talked to you about this on the show, about how the media can just not ignore this any longer. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, it says, ‘Millions Flowed to Biden Family Members. Don’t Pretend It Doesn’t Matter.’
Ashley Strohmier
“So do you think that because of your investigation, that is what’s moved this needle with the media?”
Comer, whose committee has been relentlessly investigating Hunter Biden, the son of President Joseph Biden, leaped to answer:
“Absolutely. There’s no question. You look at the polling, and right now Donald Trump is seven points ahead of Joe Biden and trending upward, Joe Biden’s trending downward.
“And I believe that the media is looking around, scratching their head, and they’re realizing that the American people are keeping up with our investigation.”
His claim that Trump has a seven-point edge over Biden stems from an ABC News/Washington Post survey in early May. But other surveys show Biden leading, and polling generally indicates a tight race between Biden and Trump.
In fact, there is little evidence that House GOP investigations of Biden’s family are having a negative effect on Biden’s political standing. Biden’s approval rating remains low, but surveys show little indication that the Comer-led investigations have had a major effect one way or another.
On May 10, Republicans claimed that President Biden’s family members received millions in suspicious money transfers before Biden became president.
But despite promises of a bombshell revelation, the new evidence Republicans displayed did not directly implicate Biden.
Comer said that bank records obtained through subpoenas showed that the President’s son Hunter Biden, his brother James Biden and his son Beau’s widow, Hallie Biden, received payments totaling more than $10 million from foreign sources, including from individuals aligned with the Chinese Communist Party.
Hunter Biden
Comer didn’t say that the President himself received any payments or that he performed an official act in exchange for his family members receiving the money.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD.), the committee’s top Democrat, said Comer had failed to provide evidence substantiating his claims of wrongdoing by Biden.
“He continues to bombard the public with innuendo, misrepresentations, and outright lies, recycling baseless claims from stories that were debunked years ago,” said Raskin.
Even before Republicans won control of the House on November 8, 2022, they openly admitted their upcoming investigations would target political opponents and influence public opinion for the 2024 elections
On August 10, 2022, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “So, all these things need to be investigated just so you have the truth, plus that will help frame up the 2024 race, when I hope and I think President Trump is going to run again and we need to make sure that he wins.”
And on October 26, James Comer said: “There are a lot of factors that are going to prevent Joe Biden from running. His age, the results of the midterm elections in two weeks. But also his son. Look, this Biden family investigation’s only going to ramp up in a Republican majority.”
Not since the notorious reign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy have Congressional Republicans been so open about their all-consuming drive for all-encompassing power.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ASHLEY STROHMIER, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, HUFFINGTON POST, HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES COMER, JAMES COMEY, JAMIE RASKIN, JIM JORDAN, JOSEPH BIDEN, JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LETITIA JAMES, MAR-A-LAGO, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PAUL RYAN, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RACHEL MADDOW, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 25, 2023 at 12:10 am
Donald Trump—before, during and after his Presidency—has always preferred “journalists” who toss him softball questions and repeatedly pay homage to him.
Such a “journalist” is Sean Hannity, host of the Fox Network’s Sean Hannity Show.
On September 21, 2022, Hannity—who had “interviewed” Trump on many other occasions—did so again.
From the outset, he made his intentions clear: To exonerate Trump—who is now facing multiple civil and criminal investigations—from all accusations.
Hannity opened by attacking Trump’s longtime foe, New York Attorney General Letitia James:
“Take a look at New York Attorney General Letitia James. Now, today she filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and three of his children and other entities, claiming that they inflated the value of the Trump Organization. It is nothing short of a very obvious political stunt. It is not a criminal case. It is a civil case….
Sean Hannity
“Now, the attorney general isn’t even trying to hide her efforts to weaponize justice in New York State. Her conduct is deeply unethical at best.”
Then Hannity moved on to other “Trump haters”:
“But she’s not alone, you know, from the Trump haters on Capitol Hill, high-ranking deep state bureaucrats in the DOJ, the FBI. Now we have witnessed, going on many years, the 45th President has been the subject of what is non-stop, never-ending legal scrutiny focused not on a specific crime but on the man himself.”
Donald Trump
Then he moved on—inevitably—to attacking former Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:
“And, by the way, the President can declassify any of these documents—unlike, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she cannot.
“Still, she stored 110 classified documents on unsecured private servers. Hillary Clinton was never forced to endure a federal raid. She was never charged with any crime.”
Hannity then ran a clip of former FBI Director James Comey saying of Clinton: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
But Hannity did not say that Trump, on becoming President, fired Comey for investigating the proven ties between Trump’s Presidential campaign and operatives for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
All of this undoubtedly made Trump feel vindicated and comfortable. Too comfortable, as matters turned out.
When Trump left the White House on January 20, 2021, he illegally took highly-classified government documents to his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida.
On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to recover those documents. Among those retrieved: Eleven sets of classified documents, four of them tagged as “Top Secret” and one as “Top Secret/SCI,” the highest level of classification.
Documents found at Trump’s residence
Continuing to exonerate Trump, no matter what the offense, Hannity said: “OK. You have said on Truth Social a number of times you did declassify—”
TRUMP: “I did declassify.”
HANNITY: “OK. Is there a process—what was your process to declassify?”
TRUMP: “There doesn’t have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there’s—different people say different things, but as I understand there doesn’t have to be.
“If you’re the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it, because you’re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you’re sending it.”
Not even Trump’s attorneys have dared to make such an argument. Not when they demanded a “Special Master” to comb through the seized documents—allegedly so those that belonged to Trump could be returned to him.
Nor did they make such an assertion when, before Special Master Judge Raymond Dearie, they refused to state the process by which Trump had allegedly declassified the documents.
The media—and Trump’s many enemies—quickly seized upon this mind-blowing claim. Late-night TV hosts in particular milked it for laughs.
The Daily Show host Trevor Noah: How could Trump “declassify documents with his brain” when he couldn’t even “read documents with his brain?”
“If Trump actually had the power to change things just by thinking about them,” joked Jimmy Kimmel, “Don Jr. would have turned into a Big Mac 30 years ago.”
Nor did Kimmel pass up the opportunity to stick a barb into Hannity: “His approach was basically, ‘Show me on the doll where the FBI investigated you.’ I mean you have to hand it to Sean. When life gives him felons, he makes felon-ade!”
On a serious level, Trump’s outlandish assertion is liable to hurt his—or his attorneys’—appearances before various state and federal judges.
More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern politics, warned that a prince must guard against being taken lightly—and, worse, expose himself to ridicule.
In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli writes: “…He ought….to pay attention to [guilds and classes], mingle with them from time to time, and give them an example of his humanity and munificence, always upholding, however, the majesty of his dignity, which must never be allowed to fail in anything whatever.”
It’s hard to be taken seriously when you claim supernatural powers denied to other, mere mortals.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ASHLEY STROHMIER, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, HUFFINGTON POST, HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES COMER, JAMES COMEY, JAMIE RASKIN, JIM JORDAN, JOSEPH BIDEN, JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LETITIA JAMES, MAR-A-LAGO, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PAUL RYAN, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RACHEL MADDOW, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 24, 2023 at 12:25 am
It’s a truth well-known to cross-examining attorneys: The best way to obtain the truth is often to “kill your opponents with kindness.”
Witnesses always expect the opposing counsel to immediately start SCREAMING at them. But that only causes the witness to stay alert and say as little as possible.
So the smart attorney comes on as courteous, friendly, even sympathetic.
A classic example of this: A laborer claimed to have permanently injured his shoulder in a railway accident, leaving him unable to work. He claimed he could no longer raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder.
The railway’s attorney asked him a few sympathetic questions about his injuries. And the witness quickly volunteered that he was in constant pain and a near-invalid.
“And, as a result of the accident, how high can you raise your arm?” asked the attorney.
The witness slowly raised his arm parallel with his shoulder.
“Oh, that’s terrible,” said the attorney.
Then: “How high could you get it up before the accident?”
Unthinkingly, the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head—to the laughter of the judge, jury and spectators.
Case dismissed.
In politics, sometimes your best friends turn out to be your worst enemies.
Kevin McCarthy proved this during his September 30, 2015 appearance on Fox News.
McCarthy, the Republican member of the House of Representatives from Bakersfield, California, was undoubtedly feeling relaxed.
After all, he wasn’t being interviewed by such “enemies” of the Right as The New York Times or MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow.
He was being interviewed by Sean Hannity, a Right-wing political commentator whose books included Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda and Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.
The topic under discussion: Who would be the next Republican Speaker of the House, now that John Boehner had announced his decision to leave not only the Speakership but the House itself in November?
Now Hannity wanted to know what would happen when the next Republican Speaker took office. And McCarthy—who was in the running for the position—was eager to tell him.
“What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win.
“And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?
Kevin McCarthy
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her [poll] numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
In 51 words, McCarthy revealed that:
- The House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body.
- Its purpose was not to investigate the 2012 deaths of four American diplomats during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
- Its real purpose was to destroy the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
- To accomplish this, its members spent 17 months and wasted more than $4.5 million of American taxpayers’ funds.
On October 8, 2015, Republicans were expected to choose their nominee for Speaker. On that same date, McCarthy announced that he was withdrawing his name from consideration:
“Over the last week it has become clear to me that our Conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put this Conference ahead of myself. Therefore I am withdrawing my candidacy for Speaker of the House.”
When reporters asked McCarthy if his revelation was the reason he withdrew, he replied, “Well, that wasn’t helpful.”
But then he quickly replayed the official Republican version: “But this Benghazi committee was only created for one purpose: to find the truth on behalf of the families for the four dead Americans.”
On October 29, 2015, Republicans—holding the majority of House members–elected Paul Ryan, (Wisconsin) the 54th speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
Democrats and Republicans were united in their anger that the real reason for the Benghazi “investigation” had been revealed.
Democrats were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that their major Presidential candidate had been the victim of a Republican smear campaign disguised as a legitimate inquiry.
And Republicans were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that the “legitimate inquiry” had been nothing more than a Republican smear campaign.
For McCarthy, the Benghazi Committee had legitimately served the nation—not by uncovering relevant details about a terrorist act but by causing Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers to drop.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan had attacked the leaders of the Soviet Union thusly: “They reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”
McCarthy’s comments demonstrated that the Republican Party had adopted the same mindset and tactics as the dictators of the former Soviet Union.
Almost seven years after Kevin McCarthy revealed himself and his party as ruthless hypocrites, Republicans suffered a similar outbreak of truth.
But this time, the stakes were higher—involving Donald J. Trump, the former President of the United States.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HUFFINGTON POST, JAMES COMEY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LETITIA JAMES, MAR-A-LAGO, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on September 27, 2022 at 12:11 am
Donald Trump—before, during and after his Presidency—has always preferred “journalists” who toss him softball questions and repeatedly pay homage to him.
Such a “journalist” is Sean Hannity, host of the Fox Network’s Sean Hannity Show.
On September 21, Hannity—who had “interviewed” Trump on many other occasions, did so again.
From the outset, he made his intentions clear: To exonerate Trump—who is now facing multiple civil and criminal investigations—from all accusations.
Hannity opened by attacking Trump’s longtime foe, New York Attorney General Letitia James:
“Take a look at New York Attorney General Letitia James. Now, today she filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and three of his children and other entities, claiming that they inflated the value of the Trump Organization. It is nothing short of a very obvious political stunt. It is not a criminal case. It is a civil case….
Sean Hannity
“Now, the attorney general isn’t even trying to hide her efforts to weaponize justice in New York State. Her conduct is deeply unethical at best.”
Then Hannity moved on to other “Trump haters”:
“But she’s not alone, you know, from the Trump haters on Capitol Hill, high-ranking deep state bureaucrats in the DOJ, the FBI. Now we have witnessed, going on many years, the 45th president has been the subject of what is non-stop, never-ending legal scrutiny focused not on a specific crime but on the man himself.”
Donald Trump
Then he moved on—inevitably—to attacking former Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:
“And, by the way, the president can declassify any of these documents—unlike, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she cannot.
“Still, she stored 110 classified documents on unsecured private servers. Hillary Clinton was never forced to endure a federal raid. She was never charged with any crime.”
Hannity then ran a clip of former FBI Director James Comey saying of Clinton: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
But Hannity did not say that Trump, on becoming President, fired Comey for investigating the proven ties between Trump’s Presidential campaign and operatives for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
All of this undoubtedly made Trump feel vindicated and comfortable. Too comfortable, as matters turned out.
When Trump left the White House on January 20, 2021, he illegally took highly-classified government documents to his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida.
On August 8, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to recover those documents. Among those retrieved: Eleven sets of classified documents, four of them tagged as “Top Secret” and one as “Top Secret/SCI,” the highest level of classification.
Documents found at Trump’s residence
Continuing to exonerate Trump, no matter what the offense, Hannity said: “OK. You have said on Truth Social a number of times you did declassify—”
TRUMP: “I did declassify.”
HANNITY: “OK. Is there a process—what was your process to declassify?”
TRUMP: “There doesn’t have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there’s—different people say different things, but as I understand there doesn’t have to be.
“If you’re the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it, because you’re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you’re sending it.”
Not even Trump’s attorneys have dared to make such an argument. Not when they demanded a “Special Master” to comb through the seized documents—allegedly so those that belonged to Trump could be returned to him.
Nor did they make such an assertion when, before Special Master Judge Raymond Dearie, they refused to state the process by which Trump had allegedly declassified the documents.
The media—and Trump’s many enemies—quickly seized upon this mind-blowing claim. Late-night TV hosts in particular milked it for laughs.
The Daily Show host Trevor Noah: How could Trump “declassify documents with his brain” when he couldn’t even “read documents with his brain?”
“If Trump actually had the power to change things just by thinking about them,” joked Jimmy Kimmel, “Don Jr. would have turned into a Big Mac 30 years ago.”
Nor did Kimmel pass up the opportunity to stick a barb into Hannity: “His approach was basically, ‘Show me on the doll where the FBI investigated you.’ I mean you have to hand it to Sean. When life gives him felons, he makes felon-ade!”
On a serious level, Trump’s outlandish assertion is liable to hurt his—or his attorneys’—appearances before various state and federal judges.
More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern politics, warned that a prince must guard against being taken lightly—and, worse, expose himself to ridicule.
In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli writes: “…He ought….to pay attention to [guilds and classes], mingle with them from time to time, and give them an example of his humanity and munificence, always upholding, however, the majesty of his dignity, which must never be allowed to fail in anything whatever.”
It’s hard to be taken seriously when you claim supernatural powers denied to other, mere mortals.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HUFFINGTON POST, JAMES COMEY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LETITIA JAMES, MAR-A-LAGO, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on September 26, 2022 at 12:10 am
It’s a truth well-known to cross-examining attorneys: The best way to obtain the truth is often to “kill your opponents with kindness.”
Witnesses always expect the opposing counsel to immediately start screaming at them. But that only causes the witness to stay alert and say as little as possible.
So the smart attorney comes on as courteous, friendly, even sympathetic.
A classic example of this: A laborer claimed to have permanently injured his shoulder in a railway accident, leaving him unable to work. He claimed he could no longer raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder.
The railway’s attorney asked him a few sympathetic questions about his injuries. And the witness quickly volunteered that he was in constant pain and a near-invalid.
“And, as a result of the accident, how high can you raise your arm?” asked the attorney.
The witness slowly raised his arm parallel with his shoulder.
“Oh, that’s terrible,” said the attorney.
Then: “How high could you get it up before the accident?”
Unthinkingly, the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head—to the laughter of the judge, jury and spectators.
Case dismissed.
In politics, sometimes your best friends turn out to be your worst enemies.
Kevin McCarthy proved this during his September 30, 2015 appearance on Fox News.
McCarthy, the Republican member of the House of Representatives from Bakersfield, California, was undoubtedly feeling relaxed.
After all, he wasn’t being interviewed by such “enemies” of the Right as The New York Times or MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow.
He was being interviewed by Sean Hannity, a Right-wing political commentator whose books included Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda and Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.
The topic under discussion: Who would be the next Republican Speaker of the House, now that John Boehner had announced his decision to leave not only the Speakership but the House itself in November?
Now Hannity wanted to know what would happen when the next Republican Speaker took office. And McCarthy—who was in the running for the position—was eager to tell him.
“What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win.
“And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?
Kevin McCarthy
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her [poll] numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
In 51 words, McCarthy revealed that:
- The House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body.
- Its purpose was not to investigate the 2012 deaths of four American diplomats during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
- Its real purpose was to destroy the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
- To accomplish this, its members spent 17 months and wasted more than $4.5 million of American taxpayers’ funds.
On October 8, 2015, Republicans were expected to choose their nominee for Speaker. On that same date, McCarthy announced that he was withdrawing his name from consideration:
“Over the last week it has become clear to me that our Conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put this Conference ahead of myself. Therefore I am withdrawing my candidacy for Speaker of the House.”
When reporters asked McCarthy if his revelation was the reason he withdrew, he replied, “Well, that wasn’t helpful.”
But then he quickly replayed the official Republican version: “But this Benghazi committee was only created for one purpose: to find the truth on behalf of the families for the four dead Americans.”
On October 29, 2015, Republicans—holding the majority of House members–elected Paul Ryan, (Wisconsin) the 54th speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
Democrats and Republicans were united in their anger that the real reason for the Benghazi “investigation” had been revealed.
Democrats were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that their major Presidential candidate had been the victim of a Republican smear campaign disguised as a legitimate inquiry.
And Republicans were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that the “legitimate inquiry” had been nothing more than a Republican smear campaign.
For McCarthy, the Benghazi Committee had legitimately served the nation—not by uncovering relevant details about a terrorist act but by causing Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers to drop.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan had attacked the leaders of the Soviet Union thusly: “They reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”
McCarthy’s comments demonstrated that the Republican Party had adopted the same mindset and tactics as the dictators of the former Soviet Union.
Almost seven years after Kevin McCarthy revealed himself and his party as ruthless hypocrites, Republicans suffered a similar outbreak of truth.
But this time, the stakes were higher—involving Donald J. Trump, the former President of the United States.
Like this:
Like Loading...
ABC NEWS, ADMINISTRATION, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUREAUCRACIES, BUSINESS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CEOS, CNN, CORPORATIONS, CROOKS AND LIARS, CUSTOMER SERVICE, DAILY KOZ, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, LG, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLICE DEPARTMENTS, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PROSECUTORS, RAW STORY, REUTERS, ROBERT TOWENSEND, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SELF-HELP, SLATE, SMALL CLAIMS COURT, SUPERIOR COURT, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE SHARPER IMAGE, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, History, Self-Help, Social commentary on June 3, 2021 at 12:41 am
So you’ve spent the last half-hour or more on the phone, listening to one recorded message after another (and probably a symphony of bad music).
And you’re no closer to solving the problem that caused you to phone the company/agency in the first place.
What to do?
- Go on the Internet and look up the company’s/agency’s website.
- Look for links to their Board of Directors. Often enough you’ll get not only their names but their bios, phone numbers and even email addresses.
- Start looking at the bottom of the website page. Many companies/agencies put this information there—and usually in small print.
- Look for the names of officials who can help you. That means the ones at the top—or at least high enough so you can be sure that whoever responds to your call/letter/email has the necessary clout to address your problem.
- If you call, don’t ask to speak directly with Mr. Big—that’s not going to happen. Ask to speak with Mr. Big’s secretary, who is far more accessible.
- Keep your tone civil, and try to make your call as brief as possible. Don’t go into a lot of background about all the problems you’ve been having getting through to someone.
- Give the gist and ask for a referral to someone who can help resolve your problem.
- If the secretary needs more time to study the problem before referring you to someone else, be patient. Answer any questions asked—such as your name, address, phone number and/or email.
- State—specifically—what you want the company to do to resolve your problem. If you want a refund or repairs for your product, say so.
- Too many consumers don’t specify what they want the company to do–they’re so caught up in their rage and frustration that this completely escapes them.
- Be reasonable. If you want a refund, then don’t ask for more money than you paid for the product.
- If you want to return a product for an exchange, don’t expect the company to give you a new one with even more bells and whistles—unless you’re willing to pay the difference in price.
- If you want an agency to investigate your complaint, give them time to assess your information and that supplied by others.
- Give the CEO’s secretary at least one to two days to get back to you. Resolving your problem isn’t the only task she needs to complete.
- You can usually get one agency to sit on another—if you can make a convincing case that it’s in that secondary agency’s best interests to do so.
- If you’ve been roughed up by local police for no good reason, for example, you can file a complaint with that department–-and the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office (federal prosecutor) to investigate.
- That doesn’t guarantee they will resolve your problem. But if you can show that the cops have violated several Federal civil rights laws, the odds are good that someone will take a serious look at your complaint.
- If a company/agency official has acted so outrageously that the company/agency might now be sued or prosecuted, don’t be afraid to say so.
- But don’t threaten to sue. Just point out that the company’s/agency’s reputation for integrity/efficiency is not well-served by such behavior.
- Whoever reads your letter/email will instantly realize the legal implications of what you’re saying—and will likely take quick action to head off a lawsuit by trying to satisfy your request. Remember: The foremost priority of every bureaucracy is to ensure its own survival..
- If you’re writing the CEO, make sure you use his full name and title—and that you spell both correctly. People don’t get to be CEOs without a huge sense of ego. People don’t get to be CEOs without a huge sense of ego. Nothing will turn him off faster than your failing to get his name and title exactly right.
- As in the case with his secretary, be brief—no more than a page and a half. Outline the problem you’re having and at least some (though not necessarily all) of the steps you’re taken to get it resolved.
- Then state what you want the company to do. Again, be fair and reasonable.
If all of this fails, you still have the option to sue. But don’t be in a rush to go to court. For one thing, you might not have a case that a judge would consider trying.
For another, judges and juries like to feel that you’ve behaved reasonably and done everything short of filing a lawsuit before you actually file one.
If your claim is $10,000 or less, you can file in small claims court. There you won’t need a lawyer—in fact, you’re not allowed to have one. It’s just you and the person you’re suing standing before a judge and explaining your side of the case.
For claims above $10,000, you’ll go to superior court. You aren’t required to have a lawyer, but odds are your opponent will have one. So you’d better be ready to shell out money for one—unless you can find one who’ll take your case on a contingency basis (for a portion of the fee recovered).
Like this:
Like Loading...
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ATTORNEYS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, EWS, FACEBOOK, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES COMEY, JOHN BOEHNER, KEVIN MCCARTHY, MICHAEL COHEN, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, ROBERT MUELLER, Ronald Reagan, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, STORMY DANIELS, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, VOLTAIRE
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 9, 2018 at 12:13 am
President Donald Trump has two major legal problems.
First, he’s under investigation by Independent Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller, who’s armed with top-flight investigators and an unlimited budget.
And, second, his attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, is rushing from one TV talk show to another, making incriminating statements that Mueller can use against Trump.
Giuliani is a former United States Attorney and United States Associate Attorney General. So he should know that the more he speaks about Trump, the more potential leads he provides Mueller’s investigators to follow.
Rudolph Giuliani
Thus, he said, on Fox News’ “Sean Hannity” program, that Trump paid back his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, the $130,000 in hush money that Cohen paid porn actress Stormy Daniels.
The reason: To ensure her silence over an alleged affair with Trump.
Giuliani’s statement, on May 3, contradicted Trump, who had previously denied knowing about the payment. It also contradicted Cohen’s February statement that Trump did not reimburse the $130,000.
Not content to stop there, Giuliani added: “Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton“—thus giving a political motive to the action.
Donald Trump
Giuliani, appearing on a Right-wing Fox News show, clearly felt comfortable. After all, he wasn’t being interrogated by a reporter for CNN or The New York Times.
It’s precisely that sense of safety that experienced cross-examiners hope to instill in witnesses—just before they lower the hatchet.
But Hannity—an ardent supporter of Trump—wasn’t trying to ensnare Giuliani.
Hannity asked if Trump would testify before Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
GIULIANI: “Well, right now, a lot of things point in the direction of, they made up their mind that [former FBI Director James] Comey is telling the truth and not the president.
“When you look at those questions about what does the president think, what does the president feel, what does the president really desire, those are all questions intended to trap him in some way and contradicting what is in fact a very, very solid explanation of what happened.
“He fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation. He’s entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that. Actually, he couldn’t get that. So, he fired him and he said, I’m free of the guy, and he went on Lester Holt.”
James Comey
Later in the interview, Giuliani returned to the Cohen payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels:
GIULIANI: “Having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman $130,000, I mean, which is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. That money was not campaign money, sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.”
HANNITY: “They funneled it through a law firm.”
GIULIANI: “Funneled it through a law firm and the president repaid it.”
HANNITY: “I didn’t know he did.”
GIULIANI: “Yes. Zero.”
HANNITY: “So the president—“
GIULIANI: “Just like every, Sean—“
HANNITY: “So this decision was made by—“
GIULIANI: “Sean, everybody—everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. I wasn’t. I knew how much money Donald Trump put in to that campaign. I said $130,000. You’re going to do a couple of checks for 130,000.
“When I heard Cohen’s retainer of $35,000 when he was doing no work for the president, I said that’s how he’s repaying—that’s how he’s repaying it with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael.”
HANNITY: “But do you know the president didn’t know about this? I believe that’s what Michael said.”
GIULIANI: “He didn’t know about the specifics of it as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this. Like, I take care of things like this for my clients. I don’t burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people….
“A settlement payment which is a very regular thing for lawyers to do. The question there was, the only possible violation there would be wasn’t a campaign finance violation, which usually results in a fine by the way, not this big storm troopers coming in and breaking down his apartment and breaking down his office.
“That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do out of his law firm funds or whatever funds, it doesn’t matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months.”
HANNITY: “But he had said he didn’t, I distinctly remember that he did it on his own—“
GIULIANI: “He did….”
**********
So, Giuliani:
- Admits that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey for patently illegal reasons. [Comey accuses Trump of demanding a pledge of personal loyalty; Trump denies this.]
- Exonerates Michael Cohen for acting as a fixer to buy the silence of a porn actress about an extramarital affair.
- Claims that arranging hush money payments is a routine practice among lawyers (“Like, I take care of things like this for my clients”).
If Trump were a reader, he might now recall the famous warning by the French philosopher Voltaire: “Lord, protect me from my friends. I can take care of my enemies.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ATTORNEYS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, EWS, FACEBOOK, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES COMEY, JOHN BOEHNER, KEVIN MCCARTHY, MICHAEL COHEN, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, ROBERT MUELLER, Ronald Reagan, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, STORMY DANIELS, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, VOLTAIRE
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 8, 2018 at 12:02 am
It’s a truth well-known to cross-examining attorneys: The best way to obtain the truth is often to “kill your opponents with kindness.”
Witnesses always expect the opposing counsel to immediately start screaming at them. But that only causes the witness to stay alert and say as little as possible.
So the smart attorney comes on as courteous, friendly, even sympathetic.
A classic example of this: A laborer claimed to have permanently injured his shoulder in a railway accident, leaving him unable to work. He claimed he could no longer raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder.
The railway’s attorney asked him a few sympathetic questions about his injuries. And the witness quickly volunteered that he was in constant pain and a near-invalid.
“And, as a result of the accident, how high can you raise your arm?” asked the attorney.
The witness slowly raised his arm parallel with his shoulder.
“Oh, that’s terrible,” said the attorney.
Then: “How high could you get it up before the accident?”
Unthinkingly, the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head—to the laughter of the judge, jury and spectators.
Case dismissed.
In politics, sometimes your best friends turn out to be your worst enemies.
Kevin McCarthy proved this during his September 30, 2015 appearance on Fox News.
McCarthy, the Republican member of the House of Representatives from Bakersfield, California, was undoubtedly feeling relaxed.
After all, he wasn’t being interviewed by such “enemies” of the Right as The New York Times or MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow.
He was being interviewed by Sean Hannity, a Right-wing political commentator whose books included Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda and Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.
The topic under discussion: Who would be the next Republican Speaker of the House, now that John Boehner had announced his decision to leave not only the Speakership but the House itself in November?
Now Hannity wanted to know what would happen when the next Republican Speaker took office. And McCarthy—who was in the running for the position—was eager to tell him.
“What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win.
“And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?
Kevin McCarthy
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her [poll] numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
In 51 words, McCarthy revealed that:
- The House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body.
- Its purpose was not to investigate the 2012 deaths of four American diplomats during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
- Its real purpose was to destroy the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
- To accomplish this, its members spent 17 months and wasted more than $4.5 million of American taxpayers’ funds.
On October 8, 2015, Republicans were expected to choose their nominee for Speaker. On that same date, McCarthy announced that he was withdrawing his name from consideration:
“Over the last week it has become clear to me that our Conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put this Conference ahead of myself. Therefore I am withdrawing my candidacy for Speaker of the House.”
When reporters asked McCarthy if his revelation was the reason he withdrew, he replied, “Well, that wasn’t helpful.”
But then he quickly replayed the official Republican version: “But this Benghazi committee was only created for one purpose: to find the truth on behalf of the families for the four dead Americans.”
On October 29, 2015, Republicans—holding the majority of House members–elected Paul Ryan, (Wisconsin) the 54th speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
Democrats and Republicans were united in their anger that the real reason for the Benghazi “investigation” had been revealed.
Democrats were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that their major Presidential candidate had been the victim of a Republican smear campaign disguised as a legitimate inquiry.
And Republicans were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that the “legitimate inquiry” had been nothing more than a Republican smear campaign.
For McCarthy, the Benghazi Committee had legitimately served the nation—not by uncovering relevant details about a terrorist act but by causing Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers to drop.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan had attacked the leaders of the Soviet Union thusly: “They reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”
McCarthy’s comments demonstrated that the Republican Party had adopted the same mindset and tactics as the dictators of the former Soviet Union.
Two years and six months after Kevin McCarthy revealed himself and his party as ruthless hypocrites, Republicans suffered a similar outbreak of truth.
But this time, the stakes were higher—involving Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States.
Like this:
Like Loading...
ABC NEWS, AIRLINE PASSENGER RIGHTS, AIRLINES, AIRTRAN, ALTERNET, AMERICAN AIRLINES, AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX, AP, ATTORNEYS, BBC, BUSINESS INSIDER, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHICAGO O’HARE AIRPORT, CHRIS CHIRSTIE, CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS, CNN, COMPLAINT LETTERS, CONGRESS, CONSUMER RIGHTS, CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, DAILY KOS, DAVE CARROLL, DAVID DAO, DELTA AIRLINES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FACEBOOK, ITUNES, JETBLUE AIRWAYS, KGB, LEISHA HAILEY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, OVERBOOKING, POLITICO, RALPH NADER, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. AIRWAYS, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UNITED BREAKS GUITARS, UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, UPI, US AIRWAYS, USA TODAY, YOUTUBE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Self-Help, Social commentary on April 20, 2017 at 12:08 am
Even if you feel you have an airtight case against an airline and want to sue, remember this: The vast majority of cases–civil and criminal–are settled outside of court.
In civil cases especially, judges strongly urge both sides to reach a compromise rather than duke it out in court. And both sides are usually willing to do this, since there’s no telling how a jury might rule.
Finally, there’s the option of filing a class-action lawsuit.
The Lady Justice
A plus to this is that you’re not alone in your charge against the airline. Other passengers who have been similarly wronged are seeking damages, and so the spotlight is not on any one plaintiff.
A minus is that such cases are extremely complex and must be handled by experienced attorneys. Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class actions are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court.
Another minus: If your side prevails, the amount of money each plaintiff receives will be far smaller than if the award were to be divided between a single plaintiff and his attorney(s).
Finally, even if you win, you can be certain the airline will appeal the verdict. Such appeals can go on for literally years.
But the most far-reaching reforms can emerge only through Congress. And this can happen only if Americans demand that their representatives create passenger rights through long-overdue legislation.
United States Capitol Building
Protections are especially needed when a single airline official–such as a steward–kicks a passenger off an airplane for reasons that have nothing to do with security.
Examples:
- Two women kissing;
- A steward demanding whether a woman is wearing underwear;
- Another steward taking offense at a passenger’s request for help.
During the administration of President George H.W. Bush, Congress overrode only one of his 44 vetoes. In that case, Congress put a cap on the rates cable TV companies could charge.
They did so because their constituents made clear their rage about high-priced cable fees.
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives will respond to constituent demands–if voters:
- Make their specific demands known; and
- Bluntly warn: “Support this–or look for another job.”
Only such sustained action will counter the legalized bribes (known as “campaign contributions) the airlines offer to members of Congress.
There is new reason to hope that long-overdue reforms may be coming.
On April 9, police dragged Dr. David Dao, bloodied and screaming, off his United Airlines flight at Chicago O’Hare Airport.
His crime? Refusing to give up his seat for a commuting crew member.
He suffered a broken nose, the loss of two front teeth and a concussion.
Dao’s mistreatment was captured on cellphone video taken by several passengers. Posted on Youtube and on national newscasts, it sparked a massive outcry.
To the horror of company officials, United Continental Holdings stock quickly lost an estimated $255 million to $1 billion. Many passengers cut up their United-Chase credit cards and frequent flyer member cards. Others swore to never again fly United.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for a suspension to the widespread practice of overbooking:
“To have somebody pay for a ticket, reserve a seat, be seated and then dragged off the plane physically by law enforcement officers at the direction of United–it’s outrageous,” Christie told CNN’s “New Day.”
Yet Dao has plenty of company. In 2016, more than 475,000 passengers who were bumped off American domestic flights–usually due to overbooking.
It’s standard practice for airlines to sell more tickets than there are seats. “Airlines overbook because people don’t show up for flights and they don’t want to go with empty seats,” said George Hobica, founder of Airfarewatchdog.com.
When a flight is overbooked, federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules require an airline to first ask passengers to voluntarily give up their seats. Airlines can choose the amount or type of compensation. It’s usually a gift card or travel voucher for another flight.
If you are kicked off a flight due to overbooking, you can sue for more money if you believe the compensation offered wasn’t sufficient. If you intend to sue, don’t accept any flight vouchers or cash offered by the airline.
And what gives airlines the right to virtually operate as KGB agents? Consumer advocate Ralph Nader puts it thus:
“Because the contract of carriage, which is on the [United] website, is 67,000 words long and fine print, and it takes away the rights to be assured that when you have a confirmed reservation and you’re in the seat, you can stay in the seat—total unbridled discretion by the airline to throw you off the plane.”
And every other airline has a similar “contract of carriage.” These are written by airline lawyers and are entirely biased toward airlines–not customers.
Above all, remember: Airlines are run by corporations. Their foremost concern is not your comfort or even safety as a passenger. It’s with further enriching their overpaid key executives.
You must be willing to stand up for your own rights–because the CEOs running KGB Airways don’t care about them.
Like this:
Like Loading...
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ATTORNEYS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOZ, EWS, FACEBOOK, FOX NEWS, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN BOEHNER, KEVIN MCCARTHY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on October 12, 2015 at 10:56 am
In politics, sometimes your best friends turn out to be your worst enemies.
Take the case of Kevin McCarthy in his September 30 appearance on Fox News.
McCarthy, the Republican member of the House of Representatives from Bakersfield, California, was undoubtedly feeling relaxed.
After all, he wasn’t being interviewed by such “enemies” of the Right as The New York Times or MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow.
He was being interviewed by Sean Hannity, a Right-wing political commentator whose books include Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda and Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
The topic under discussion: Who would be the next Republican Speaker of the House, now that John Boehner had announced his decision to leave not only the Speakership but the House itself in November.
Now Hannity wanted to know what would happen when the next Republican Speaker took office. And McCarthy–who was in the running for the position–was eager to tell him:
“What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her [poll] numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
Kevin McCarthy
In 51 words, McCarthy revealed that:
-
- The House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body;
- Its true purpose was not to investigate the 2012 deaths of four American diplomats during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya;
- Its real purpose all along had been to destroy the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton;
- To accomplish this, its members had spent 17 months and wasted more than $4.5 million of American taxpayers’ funds.
On October 8, Republicans were expected to choose their nominee for Speaker. On that same date, McCarthy announced that he was withdrawing his name from consideration:
“Over the last week it has become clear to me that our Conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put this Conference ahead of myself. Therefore I am withdrawing my candidacy for Speaker of the House.”
When reporters asked McCarthy if his revelation was the reason he withdrew, he replied, “Well, that wasn’t helpful.”
But then he quickly replayed the official Republican version: “But this Benghazi committee was only created for one purpose: to find the truth on behalf of the families for the four dead Americans.”
Democrats and Republicans were united in their anger that the real reason for the Benghazi “investigation” had been revealed.
Democrats were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that their major Presidential candidate had been the victim of a Republican smear campaign disguised as a legitimate inquiry.
And Republicans were furious that McCarthy, in an unguarded moment, had revealed that the “legitimate inquiry” had been nothing more than a Republican smear campaign.
For McCarthy, the Benghazi Committee had legitimately served the nation–not by uncovering relevant details about a terrorist act but by causing Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers to drop.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan had attacked the leaders of the Soviet Union thusly: “They reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”
McCarthy’s comments demonstrated that the Republican Party had adopted the same mindset and tactics as the dictators of the former Soviet Union.
They also proved that the best way to obtain the truth is often the “kill them with kindness” approach.
Veteran attorneys have long taken this approach when cross-examining witnesses.
Witnesses always expect the opposing counsel to immediately start screaming at them. But that only causes the witness to stay alert and say as little as possible.
So the smart attorney comes on as courteous, friendly, even sympathetic.
In one such case: A laborer claimed to have permanently injured his shoulder in a railway accident, leaving him unable to work. He claimed he could no longer raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder.
The railway’s attorney asked him a few sympathetic questions about his injuries. And the witness quickly volunteered that he was in constant pain and a near-invalid.
“And, as a result of the accident, how high can you raise your arm?” asked the attorney.
The witness slowly raised his arm parallel with his shoulder.
“Oh, that’s terrible,” said the attorney. Then: “How high could you get it up before the accident?”
Unthinkingly, the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head–to the laughter of the judge, jury and spectators.
In light of Kevin McCarthy’s unintended revelation, no one is laughing now.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ASHLEY STROHMIER, ATTORNEYS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOX AND FRIENDS, FOX NEWS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, HUFFINGTON POST, HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES COMER, JAMES COMEY, JAMIE RASKIN, JIM JORDAN, JOSEPH BIDEN, JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, LETITIA JAMES, MAR-A-LAGO, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RACHEL MADDOW, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEAN HANNITY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOVIET UNION, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
YOUR FRIENDS AS YOUR WORST ENEMIES: PART THREE (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 26, 2023 at 12:10 amTwo suggestions for interviewees with a dark secret to hide:
First: Don’t give interviews to journalists you like. (Or, in the case of Fox News, pseudo-journalists.)
Second: Don’t give interviews at 4 A.M.
Why?
Because you’re less likely to be on guard with a friendly journalist—and thus reveal truths you will later regret spilling.
And because at 4 A.M. you’re likely so tired or keyed up you make the same mistake.
Part One of this series spotlighted such a slip-up by Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield, CA) on September 30, 2015.
In just 51 words, McCarthy revealed that the House Select Committee on Benghazi was not a legitimate investigative body. Its real purpose was to sabotage the expected Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
In doing so, McCarthy unintentionally sabotaged his own chances of becoming Speaker of the House when the then-Speaker, John Boehner, retired
Part Two of this series showed how Donald Trump made a similar mistake on September 21, 2022.
Appearing on the Right’s favorite television network, Fox News, Trump thoroughly embarrassed himself.
He was facing investigation for illegally removing classified government documents when he left the White House on January 20, 2021, and storing them at his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida.
Once again, Trump asserted he had done nothing wrong: “If you’re the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it, because you’re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you’re sending it.”
Not only was this blatantly untrue, it was so outlandish that late-night talk show hosts had a comedic field day with it.
And still Republican politicians refuse to learn.
Latest case in point: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY).
James Comer
Comer made the same mistake as McCarthy and Trump—letting the public in on an embarrassing secret—with an added twist. He did so at 4 A.M. on May 22.
Speaking—you guessed it—on Fox News, Comer unintentionally admitted weaponizing his investigative committee to aid Donald Trump’s Presidential ambitions.
Fox News host Ashley Strohmier threw out a comforting softball question: “We have talked to you about this on the show, about how the media can just not ignore this any longer. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, it says, ‘Millions Flowed to Biden Family Members. Don’t Pretend It Doesn’t Matter.’
Ashley Strohmier
“So do you think that because of your investigation, that is what’s moved this needle with the media?”
Comer, whose committee has been relentlessly investigating Hunter Biden, the son of President Joseph Biden, leaped to answer:
“Absolutely. There’s no question. You look at the polling, and right now Donald Trump is seven points ahead of Joe Biden and trending upward, Joe Biden’s trending downward.
“And I believe that the media is looking around, scratching their head, and they’re realizing that the American people are keeping up with our investigation.”
His claim that Trump has a seven-point edge over Biden stems from an ABC News/Washington Post survey in early May. But other surveys show Biden leading, and polling generally indicates a tight race between Biden and Trump.
In fact, there is little evidence that House GOP investigations of Biden’s family are having a negative effect on Biden’s political standing. Biden’s approval rating remains low, but surveys show little indication that the Comer-led investigations have had a major effect one way or another.
On May 10, Republicans claimed that President Biden’s family members received millions in suspicious money transfers before Biden became president.
But despite promises of a bombshell revelation, the new evidence Republicans displayed did not directly implicate Biden.
Comer said that bank records obtained through subpoenas showed that the President’s son Hunter Biden, his brother James Biden and his son Beau’s widow, Hallie Biden, received payments totaling more than $10 million from foreign sources, including from individuals aligned with the Chinese Communist Party.
Hunter Biden
Comer didn’t say that the President himself received any payments or that he performed an official act in exchange for his family members receiving the money.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD.), the committee’s top Democrat, said Comer had failed to provide evidence substantiating his claims of wrongdoing by Biden.
“He continues to bombard the public with innuendo, misrepresentations, and outright lies, recycling baseless claims from stories that were debunked years ago,” said Raskin.
Even before Republicans won control of the House on November 8, 2022, they openly admitted their upcoming investigations would target political opponents and influence public opinion for the 2024 elections
On August 10, 2022, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “So, all these things need to be investigated just so you have the truth, plus that will help frame up the 2024 race, when I hope and I think President Trump is going to run again and we need to make sure that he wins.”
And on October 26, James Comer said: “There are a lot of factors that are going to prevent Joe Biden from running. His age, the results of the midterm elections in two weeks. But also his son. Look, this Biden family investigation’s only going to ramp up in a Republican majority.”
Not since the notorious reign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy have Congressional Republicans been so open about their all-consuming drive for all-encompassing power.
Share this:
Like this: