The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[SectionC3]

Here’s the guess as to why BillsFan1959 took a legal mind honed by 35+ years of staring at a wall in a courtroom and deluding himself into thinking he is better equipped than the people who, you know, actually have the guts and smarts to get into the arena in the same room in which he stood idly by took his ball and went home on this one:

 

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/09/29/christine-blasey-fords-friend-clarifies-kavanaugh-statement/

[billsfan1959]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Here’s the guess as to why BillsFan1959 took a legal mind honed by 35+ years of staring at a wall in a courtroom and deluding himself into thinking he is better equipped than the people who, you know, actually have the guts and smarts to get into the arena in the same room in which he stood idly by took his ball and went home on this one:

 

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/09/29/christine-blasey-fords-friend-clarifies-kavanaugh-statement/

 

Do you need a hug, my friend? Why so aggressive? What arena is it that I don't have the guts to get into? 

 

You can get as aggressive as you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe Ford because you want to. You cannot provide a shred of evidence to show har accusation has any credibility to it at all.

 

I'm sorry this is causing you so much angst. It is what it is.

 

Just let it go

[SectionC3]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Do you need a hug, my friend? Why so aggressive? What arena is it that I don't have the guts to get into? 

 

You can get as aggressive as you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe Ford because you want to. You cannot provide a shred of evidence to show har accusation has any credibility to it at all.

 

I'm sorry this is causing you so much angst. It is what it is.

 

Just let it go

 

No angst.  I’m having fun.  I am, however, growing bored waiting for you to name this “best friend” and to explain how I’m “always wrong.”

 

FYI, I appreciate that we’re going round and round here, but her testimony alone is enough to support her contention.  I happen to believe her.  You have a different opinion.   Such is life.  

[Buffalo_Gal]

"Everyone Is Shocked": CBS News Hit Hard by Layoffs
 

 "I’m really sorry," network president Susan Zirinsky said Wednesday on an all-staff Zoom meeting about the cuts. "There is not a person who won’t be missed."
 

CBS News was hit hard by a round of corporate cost-cutting that saw "a single-digit percentage" of the network's news staffers laid off, according to an estimate given by network president Susan Zirinsky during a Wednesday afternoon all-hands conference.
 

Based on the size of the news network — which totals more than 500 staffers — employees did the back-of-the-envelope math and estimated that about 50 staffers were cut, though the network has not said specifically how many were affected.
 

</snip>
 

The cost-cutting at the news division arrives as part of a broad restructuring after the December closing of the merger between Viacom and CBS. In New York, some 450 staffers have been impacted by cuts companywide at ViacomCBS since January, per a filing with the state's Department of Labor.
 

</snip>

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

No angst.  I’m having fun.  I am, however, growing bored waiting for you to name this “best friend” and to explain how I’m “always wrong.”

 

FYI, I appreciate that we’re going round and round here, but her testimony alone is enough to support her contention.  I happen to believe her.  You have a different opinion.   Such is life.  

 

No angst here, either. I always enjoy these types of discussions. I actually have no problem with a differing opinion, and the fact that you happen to believe her is fine by me. I have a number of close friends that share the same opinion. I absolutely support your right to have whatever opinion you want.

 

My disagreement is with statements like, "...her testimony alone is enough to support her contention." I do not agree with that.

 

However, I am growing bored as well, so, until the next issue we disagree upon (which I am sure will be right around the corner),

 

Cheers

[SectionC3]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

No angst here, either. I always enjoy these types of discussions. I actually have no problem with a differing opinion, and the fact that you happen to believe her is fine by me. I have a number of close friends that share the same opinion. I absolutely support your right to have whatever opinion you want.

 

My disagreement is with statements like, "...her testimony alone is enough to support her contention." I do not agree with that.

 

However, I am growing bored as well, so, until the next issue we disagree upon (which I am sure will be right around the corner),

 

Cheers

 

Point of fact it is, though.  That’s the misconception about rape/sexual assault cases.  Her testimony was legally sufficient to support the allegation.  Whether it should be credited is a different matter.  That’s the weight issue.  We all see it differently, and those differences are what make the world a sometimes fun and always interesting place. 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Based on the text size, that’s still a short flagpole.  It’s also crooked, which some people might say is unbecoming.   But if it’s how you want to represent yourself, I’m not going to stand in your way.  

If you were an observant person you would notice that the full extent of the flagpole is not shown. That way you'll never get to see what you are so desperately trying to see, or wave. Here's a tip for you though, stop with your obsession. 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Point of fact it is, though.  That’s the misconception about rape/sexual assault cases.  Her testimony was legally sufficient to support the allegation.  Whether it should be credited is a different matter.  That’s the weight issue.  We all see it differently, and those differences are what make the world a sometimes fun and always interesting place. 

 

Actually, I believe this is a point on which we do agree. I have no problem with her statements being legally sufficient on their own to support the allegation. I have never argued that. It is precisely a weight issue, which, as you know, is entirely within the purview of the jurors - which, in this instance is us. 

 

That is where we really differ: What we choose to give weight to and how much weight we choose to give it.

 

Those differences do make things interesting.

[SectionC3]

41 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

If you were an observant person you would notice that the full extent of the flagpole is not shown. That way you'll never get to see what you are so desperately trying to see, or wave. Here's a tip for you though, stop with your obsession. 

 

It looked pretty crooked and narrow to me.  Sad!

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It looked pretty crooked and narrow to me.  Sad!

What difference does it make? How many times do I have to tell you? 

 

"No, you're never gonna get it
Never ever gonna get it (no, not this time)
No, you're never gonna get it (my love)
Never ever gonna get it

No, you're never gonna get it
Never ever gonna get it (no, not this time)
No, you're never gonna get it (my love)
Never ever gonna get it"

[Nanker]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Yes 
 

Case of the Terrified Typist 

Case of the Deadly Verdict. 
 

And those were just against Mason who must have learned his courtroom tactics from Bill Belichick. 

You forgot The Case of the Flatuent Poster

and The Case of the Pompous Pretender. 
 

Those were classic and their transcripts can be read on these very pages. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

What difference does it make? How many times do I have to tell you? 

 

"No, you're never gonna get it
Never ever gonna get it (no, not this time)
No, you're never gonna get it (my love)
Never ever gonna get it

No, you're never gonna get it
Never ever gonna get it (no, not this time)
No, you're never gonna get it (my love)
Never ever gonna get it"

 

That’s more culture that I expected today.  A little En Vogue.  Interesting. 

 

I’m not sure what the “it” is, though.  Care to explain?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

There you go again with your alternative facts.  I said nothing of the sort.  The issue of Flynn's guilt is resolved.  Like it or not, he's guilty.  And he'll be guilty again tomorrow, too.  Maybe he gets to reopen that question, but as of this moment in time the issue of his guilt has been determined. 

 

Update:  Just checked.  He's still guilty.  And the issue of his guilt has been resolved.  Enjoy!

 

So, my intent is to be an honest broker looking for dialogue.  True, I like to have a bit of fun with the discourse, but my fundamental rule is I try really hard not to say something online I wouldn't say to someone in person.  

 

I reached out to a friend who is an attorney of some renown in NYS govt.  Disclosure, he defines himself as a liberal, he believes COVID is a big &^%$ing deal and thinks Cuomo is doing a good job at the helm of it all.  He is not a Trump fan, obviously, keeps his commentary to a respectable level and imo is  pretty smart guy.  

 

I asked him to share his thoughts on the technical side of the Flynn case, the issues you and I have discussed and where the case stands.  I acknowledged taking a kitchen table discussion approach to it all...in other words, yeah, he plead guilty, but with everything else still pending, is he guilty?

 

My friend's take is as you have suggested with respect to 'conviction'.  When Flynn plead guilty, he was convicted.  Good for you on that--though it seems from your reply above that you felt that I misrepresented what you said and didn't say that.  I was pretty sure you did, so I want you to be acknowledged for that. 

 

That said, my friend's read on it was that a guilty plea reflects guilty, though a timely plea to withdraw was submitted to have the plea reconsidered.  In his opinion, the case is not yet resolved, pending motions etc etc etc.  

 

Finally--from his reply, my friend feels that Flynn is guilty, should be guilty, that Judge Sullivan is non-partisan, and believes the 4 us attornies resigned in protest due to the unusual nature of the case.  We disagreed on much of that, and chatted a bit more on the multiple set of rules that seem to apply to reg folks v the elite, and agreed to disagree,  

 

Good call on conviction (assuming I understood you on that before you said I misrepresented).  

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Point of fact it is, though.  That’s the misconception about rape/sexual assault cases.  Her testimony was legally sufficient to support the allegation.  Whether it should be credited is a different matter.  That’s the weight issue.  We all see it differently, and those differences are what make the world a sometimes fun and always interesting place. 

And..it makes it a dangerous place as well.  

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So, my intent is to be an honest broker looking for dialogue.  True, I like to have a bit of fun with the discourse, but my fundamental rule is I try really hard not to say something online I wouldn't say to someone in person.  

 

I reached out to a friend who is an attorney of some renown in NYS govt.  Disclosure, he defines himself as a liberal, he believes COVID is a big &^%$ing deal and thinks Cuomo is doing a good job at the helm of it all.  He is not a Trump fan, obviously, keeps his commentary to a respectable level and imo is  pretty smart guy.  

 

I asked him to share his thoughts on the technical side of the Flynn case, the issues you and I have discussed and where the case stands.  I acknowledged taking a kitchen table discussion approach to it all...in other words, yeah, he plead guilty, but with everything else still pending, is he guilty?

 

My friend's take is as you have suggested with respect to 'conviction'.  When Flynn plead guilty, he was convicted.  Good for you on that--though it seems from your reply above that you felt that I misrepresented what you said and didn't say that.  I was pretty sure you did, so I want you to be acknowledged for that. 

 

That said, my friend's read on it was that a guilty plea reflects guilty, though a timely plea to withdraw was submitted to have the plea reconsidered.  In his opinion, the case is not yet resolved, pending motions etc etc etc.  

 

Finally--from his reply, my friend feels that Flynn is guilty, should be guilty, that Judge Sullivan is non-partisan, and believes the 4 us attornies resigned in protest due to the unusual nature of the case.  We disagreed on much of that, and chatted a bit more on the multiple set of rules that seem to apply to reg folks v the elite, and agreed to disagree,  

 

Good call on conviction (assuming I understood you on that before you said I misrepresented).  

 

I’ll start with the resignation of the attorneys.  It’s weird.  

 

I agree with your friend on Sullivan.  No experience or background with the judge, but the procedure here is eminently fair and cautious.  It’s a very, very smart approach to a politically-charged case.  And it’s especially appropriate from what little of the backstory I know here - Flynn moves to vacate, and the government (again, from what I understand and could be wrong) doesn’t support the motion with a substantive submission and instead simply doesn’t oppose it.  In this context, that’s odd.  So Sullivan is doing due diligence and having an amicus stand in the shoes of the government to make sure that the government’s approach is above-board.  Perfectly reasonable and apolitical.  

 

Your friend is right about the finality point.  The question of guilt has been resolved, but we don’t have a judgment yet (which typically signifies the end of a case at the trial level) because Flynn hasn’t been sentenced and the judgment is rendered only after sentence is imposed.  So while the question is guilt at this point is closed/answered, the case is still live because there is an untaken step with respect to the guilty plea (namely, the sentence, and I suppose the motion to withdraw the plea).  

 

You and I are both sort of right about the guilty issue.  My point is a technical one.  Flynn is guilty because he pleaded guilty and the guilty plea has not been withdrawn or otherwise disturbed.  Until something disturbs the plea, he is guilty, like it or lump it.  Your point is a practical one; because Flynn has moved to withdraw the plea, there’s good reason to believe that the final word on the question of his guilt has not been spoken.   It may be that down the road you’re right about that.  Time will tell.  

 

Finally, that was a nice post you made.  We may disagree on the issues, but I very much respect your honesty.  I try to live my life and work my job that way, and I very, very much respect you taking the time to reason through this interesting legal issue.  Well done. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’ll start with the resignation of the attorneys.  It’s weird.  

 

I agree with your friend on Sullivan.  No experience or background with the judge, but the procedure here is eminently fair and cautious.  It’s a very, very smart approach to a politically-charged case.  And it’s especially appropriate from what little of the backstory I know here - Flynn moves to vacate, and the government (again, from what I understand and could be wrong) doesn’t support the motion with a substantive submission and instead simply doesn’t oppose it.  In this context, that’s odd.  So Sullivan is doing due diligence and having an amicus stand in the shoes of the government to make sure that the government’s approach is above-board.  Perfectly reasonable and apolitical.  

 

Your friend is right about the finality point.  The question of guilt has been resolved, but we don’t have a judgment yet (which typically signifies the end of a case at the trial level) because Flynn hasn’t been sentenced and the judgment is rendered only after sentence is imposed.  So while the question is guilt at this point is closed/answered, the case is still live because there is an untaken step with respect to the guilty plea (namely, the sentence, and I suppose the motion to withdraw the plea).  

 

You and I are both sort of right about the guilty issue.  My point is a technical one.  Flynn is guilty because he pleaded guilty and the guilty plea has not been withdrawn or otherwise disturbed.  Until something disturbs the plea, he is guilty, like it or lump it.  Your point is a practical one; because Flynn has moved to withdraw the plea, there’s good reason to believe that the final word on the question of his guilt has not been spoken.   It may be that down the road you’re right about that.  Time will tell.  

 

Finally, that was a nice post you made.  We may disagree on the issues, but I very much respect your honesty.  I try to live my life and work my job that way, and I very, very much respect you taking the time to reason through this interesting legal issue.  Well done. 

Yes to the bolded. 

 

Btw--I did zing my friend a bit about laws for us v laws for them.  I've mentioned him previously, he worked for Spitzer and supported his candidacy, thought he would do a good job as gov.  I reminded him how wrong he was about the guy, and how as a non-attoney it seemed to me that a guy hitting up call girls online, on the phone, potentially across state lines, maybe using campaign fund or public dollars, and not paying sales tax for services rendered might well kinda shoulda been charged with...something.   He doesn't disagree. 

[SectionC3]

15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Yes to the bolded. 

 

Btw--I did zing my friend a bit about laws for us v laws for them.  I've mentioned him previously, he worked for Spitzer and supported his candidacy, thought he would do a good job as gov.  I reminded him how wrong he was about the guy, and how as a non-attoney it seemed to me that a guy hitting up call girls online, on the phone, potentially across state lines, maybe using campaign fund or public dollars, and not paying sales tax for services rendered might well kinda shoulda been charged with...something.   He doesn't disagree. 

 

Spitzer is a scumbag.  Whether he should have been prosecuted I can’t say.  But you’ll get no argument from me that he is exactly the type of personality we don’t want in public office.  

[MILFHUNTER#518]

He spent tens of thousands of dollars to make this go away (professional net scrub), but as a wise man once said, "the internet is forever"

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by MILFHUNTER#518

[B-Man]

 

 

TYPICAL............

 

 

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

.....and the objectively fair and balanced Bezos bought WaPo to get the facts out......

 

 

JIM TREACHER: WaPo Now Directly Creating Ads for Biden Campaign.

 

“I’m not a journalist or a lawyer, so I can’t speak to any ethical or legal concerns about the second-biggest newspaper in America openly collaborating with one of the candidates during a presidential campaign. I assume it’s all above board, or WaPo wouldn’t have approved it. If they want to look like they’re directly working for Biden’s campaign, that’s their business. It’s not like they have much of a reputation left to destroy anyway.

 

Nobody really believes WaPo is unbiased and impartial, least of all the people who are paid to say WaPo is unbiased and impartial. They all want Biden to win, because they’re all Democrats.”

 

 

Well, this isn’t all that new for the WaPo: Ben Bradlee: A cautionary tale of Kennedy’s courtier.  “Not content to write glowing accounts of Kennedy’s campaign, Bradlee also gave JFK private intel on the opposition. In May 1959, after covering a speech by Democratic rival Lyndon Johnson, Bradlee wrote a confidential strategy memo to Kennedy assessing Johnson’s performance and offering advice on convention plans.”