I kind of wonder about the timing of this suit- why now, rather than earlier? Has the DNC obtained evidence that it did not have before that backs up the claim? Were they up against a statute of limitations?
I'm thinking that Trump is definitely going to characterize this suit as a panic move by the DNC, who know (still talking as Trump here) that Mueller has nothing and are just trying to make the fake which hunt last through the election.
I kind of wonder about the timing of this suit- why now, rather than earlier? Has the DNC obtained evidence that it did not have before that backs up the claim? Were they up against a statute of limitations?
I'm thinking that Trump is definitely going to characterize this suit as a panic move by the DNC, who know (still talking as Trump here) that Mueller has nothing and are just trying to make the fake which hunt last through the election.
So why now, and not a while ago?
There is definitely new information available to the DNC that wasn't available immediately after the election. A lot of it comes from Mueller's investigation, like the admissions in Papadopoulos' guilty plea. That was information the DNC didn't have until last October. There was a bare allegation that the Russian's hacked the DNC before the election, but the underlying evidence wasn't available to the public (and thus the DNC) until last month.
As for whether it's a political mistake, I don't know. Trump is going to cry "persecution" no matter what, even though he's not named as defendant in this suit, so trying to appease him is a sucker's game. For those lower down the food chain, I'd argue that the reason this dirty tricks campaign got so out of hand is that the participants calculated that nothing would happen to them if they got caught. The prospect of legal liability might change things going forward.
It's not a substitute for a credible candidate come 2020.
I'm not sure who you think is arguing this. On the other hand, if you're arguing that as long as a credible candidate exists in 2020 (and pretty much by definition all major party nominees are "credible") any cyber-warfare conducted against them is irrelevant, then that's a proposition I actually do disagree with.
I don't know. From where I'm sitting it looks like taking the fight for justice to a partisan level, away from the institutions. Can't they stick to politics instead of litigating? And call me naive, but I don't think cyber-warfare is the end of the story if a truly compelling candidate were to emerge.
I don't know. From where I'm sitting it looks like taking the fight for justice to a partisan level, away from the institutions. Can't they stick to politics instead of litigating?
I think that's a problem inherent in having a civil court system. The DNC is (allegedly) an injured party. Saying they shouldn't have access to the normal forms of redress the U.S. has established for these kinds of injuries seems like it would be an open invitation to further injury.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the institutions". The civil justice system would seem to be an "institution". I'm not sure leaving the protection of the electoral process solely in the hands of the criminal justice system is a great idea. For example, a recent civil suit by the ACLU seems to be doing a lot more to protect the rights of the voters of Kansas than the Voting Section of Jeff Sessions' Department of Justice. Go figure!
The DNC is (allegedly) an injured party. Saying they shouldn't have access to the normal forms of redress the U.S. has established for these kinds of injuries seems like it would be an open invitation to further injury.
I take your point, but I think they lose a lot of moral high ground in this action at this stage. Having a right of redress doesn't compel you to exercise it. It comes across as losing faith in the Mueller investigation, even if the aims are not quite the same. In France the opposition's usual response to something like this would be to say like "let justice do its work" and anything else would be disparaged as attempting to meddle.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the institutions". The civil justice system would seem to be an "institution". I'm not sure leaving the protection of the electoral process solely in the hands of the criminal justice system is a great idea. For example, a recent civil suit by the ACLU seems to be doing a lot more to protect the rights of the voters of Kansas than the Voting Section of Jeff Sessions' Department of Justice. Go figure!
Yes, but the ACLU is an advocacy group, not a political party. By contrast, it's hard not to see how any DNC lawsuit, and the judges' rulings it would entail, could be anything other than hopelessly politicised.
Again, I'm at a considerable distance from all this, but it seems to me that fuelling a spirit of partisanship is the last thing the US needs right now.
[ETA I read Axelrod's tweet after composing this, not before]
To me, it does not mean the DNC is losing faith in the Mueller investigation. I think they filed at this time because McDonnell will not let a bill that would protect the Mueller investigation go to the Senate floor. If anything, they are losing faith in the Republican lead Senate--as if that would be a surprise.
The evidentuary rules of a civil suit is much different than the than the evidentuary rules of a criminal case. For one they do not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a crime has been committed; they only have to prove there is a preponderance of evidence that injury has been caused. Second, in a criminal case the focus is much narrower in scope. A civil injury case can be very wide. They will likely pull in information about how Cambridge Analytica helped to throw the vote. Third, they do not have to rely on a unanimous vote of the jury to convict; all that is needed is a unanimous vote of the peers to uphold the lawsuit.
Take the case of O.J. Simpson. While the prosecutors could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that O.J. did it. "If it does not fit, you must acquit," the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman was able to bankrupt Simpson by showing how O.J.'s actions resulted in the death of Nicole and Ron. Instead of relying on the gloves to prove OJ did it, the civil trial focused on the shoes that OJ allegedly wore at the time of the murder. The shoes were not allowed into evidence in the criminal trial, but the civil case allowed the evidence to be admitted. The shoes were size twelve (US) with a particular sole pattern. OJ claimed he would not wear such "a##hole" shoes, but the litigants had 30 photos of him actually wearing that type of shoe. They did not have to produce the shoes as evidence; the photos where sufficient.
Suing people has been a standard part of politics for a very long time. They even do it in local government matters here. The question is whether this is a good thing to do now, because downunder you generally have six years. So I reckon somebody thinks its a good idea, and I suppose getting people on oath is a pretty valuable thing.
From Friday's PBS Newshour: "DNC's Tom Perez: We were hacked, and we need to seek justice".
.
He was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, who kept bringing him back to the most important questions--the kinds of questions asked about the lawsuit in this thread. I think there are one or two other related segments. No transcript, but possibly closed captioning,
.
.FYI: this is the flagship news show of PBS. Much calmer style than commercial news shows.
1. Need to sue before statute of limitations applies
2. Burden of proof is easier in civil court
3. Civil suits act as a strong deterrent
4. This not a partisan response but a "patriotic" response.
He says that the aim is to demonstrate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to interfere in the presidential election.
My response to that is:
1. If the harm is "patriotic" and not partisan then to my mind this should be a criminal and not a civil matter; it should be up to a prosecutor to decide whether there is enough evidence for charges to be brought in the name of the people.
2. Using the easier standard of proof in civil court as an argument sounds like an admission that the more serious charges cannot be made to stick with a higher standard of proof (to my ears at least)
3. The deterrent argument regarding civil suits I think just highlights the huge difference in litigation culture between the US and Europe. This is not a cultural difference I am keen to see disappear. It's also hard to see how a civil suit would deter the kind of meddling the Russians are being accused of.
Woodruff also quotes the Trump accusation that the DNC is nearly bankrupt (a charge Perez does not address in his answer) and I have to say this criticism crossed my mind too. I think a lot of civil lawsuits are highly dependent on who has the deepest pockets. I also don't think shifting the focus from winning elections to winning court cases is a good idea.
Finally, I think invoking precedent from Watergate is a bad idea here. The world is not the same as it was then, and attempts to make history repeat itself have a way of going off script.
ETA I also think this may decrease support from uncommitted voters. The argument is made that this is about more than partisan politics, but by bringing the suit in its own name the DNC has potentially alienated unaligned voters.
I thought the Devon Nunes point was on the mark. An Article III court will be a more objective environment than the House Intelligence Committee under Nunes' disgraceful chairmanship.
I think Eutychus makes good points. However, I can see why Perez is doing this, regardless of financial cost. There is some force in the deterrence argument. The 2018 midterms are very important.
ETA I also think this may decrease support from uncommitted voters. The argument is made that this is about more than partisan politics, but by bringing the suit in its own name the DNC has potentially alienated unaligned voters.
I'm pretty sure that a DNC that won't stand up for voters is even more likely to alienate people. Another example that comes to mind is the DNC lawsuit that resulted from RNC voter caging and polling place intimidation tactics back in the 1980s. I'm not sure if potential voters would have been more impressed if the DNC had simply let that slide or counted on the Reagan administration to enforce the VRA. That's one of the big problems with fiddling with the electoral process; the usual means of correcting problems are, by definition, in the hands of those who are the beneficiaries of the corrupted system.
This is also, unsurprisingly, an argument that only ever gets trotted out when Democrats resort to the courts. No one seems to have worried overmuch about alienating independent voters when Republicans used the courts to hijack a presidential election.
To this European it still seems to be a poor state of affairs when this kind of matter has to be bought in a civil and not criminal court, whichever side is doing it.
Like l say, l think there's a big culture gap here.
I know that the libel laws of GB are much more stringent than the US. There have been civil cases in France over the freedom of religion VW got sued in Germany for false claims about their diesel engine. So it does happen even in Europe.
Of course, I would agree that the US has more civil litigation than most countries, but it is possible to get sued in Europe as well.
The extreme polarisation of Congress has damaged the legislature, the WH is making a dog's breakfast of large slices of the executive, so it's hardly surprising if the DNC sees using the judiciary as a viable option. Under these unusual circumstances.
'Mob boss' Trump is putting the normal checks and balances of the US system under unprecedented pressure.
To this European it still seems to be a poor state of affairs when this kind of matter has to be bought in a civil and not criminal court, whichever side is doing it.
Like l say, l think there's a big culture gap here.
[ETA Freudian typo. That should say brought]
With a criminal trial, a prosecutor has to decide the person is guilty; that there's a good chance of conviction; that it can be squeezed into the office workload; that it's worth the time, fuss, and cost; and possibly figure out which way the political winds are blowing.
I don't know if civil court has the same hoops to jump through.
That was kind of my point. If a case is sound it ought to be able to jump through those hoops. If a compelling case can't be made to a prosecutor that the nation's future is at stake then it kind of makes you wonder whether the nation's future isn't already toast.
What I mean is that there are lots of things that can get in the way, and it.'s not necessarily a matter of whether the case is *worthy* or not. AIUI, many criminal cases that should be .prosecuted aren't , and vice-versa. Things aren't necessarily even given a chance to jump through the hoops. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with justice.
As Barnabas said, sometimes when things are so polarized, a party has no choice but to go through the courts for redress. That is the beauty of an independent Judiciary system, anyone has the right to appeal to the courts as long as they have standing in the matter at hand.
If a crime and a tort are open on the facts, you can do both. There's no double jeopardy, not as I understand Aussie law anyway. [going out on a limb with a Bold Statement there, so no change in approach for me]
Over here, you can join a civil suit to a criminal case, indeed this is often a condition of the criminal case going ahead (unless the crime is especially egregious).
The best arguments I have heard (elsewhere) for this suit is that it has a chance of getting the truth heard in court, which is a fail-safe in case the Mueller investigation never comes to prosecution/impeachment, and doing so before the midterms.
The main problem I have with it is that I find it a little disingenuous to bring a civil suit invoking patriotic grounds. A tort is to a private (legal) person, the DNC, not the country. Claiming your political party represents the entire country's interests is exactly the kind of thing that draws howls of protests from Democrats when the Republicans do it.
The second problem I have is that civil suits are Trump home territory. Granted, his preferred way out is to settle, and no doubt the DNC will refuse to do so on principle, but I am sure that the defence lawyers will use every trick in the book to stall these proceedings and drown the plaintiffs in paperwork, all of which will be an expense and a distraction to the DNC that I can imagine dragging out until after the midterms (certainly in France such a suit could).
In terms of civil suits, I think the Stormy Daniels one is much more appropriate. (Although I'm now wondering whether the ulterior motive of Avenatti isn't a shot at the presidency himself, see the end of this expletive-laden interview).
I understand the patriotic claim as gilding the lily. It is a highly political suit from beginning to end.
If this was filed in Australia, there would be no chance of getting to trial before November. US TV shows have taught me that there are things called depositions, which are sworn statements of evidence I imagine. At what stage these sworn statements would be made is outside my knowledge. If I was on the DNC's legal team, I would be positively salivating for them.
I disagree that Trump is a civil suit specialist. I think he's a specialist at throwing money at legal problems, which means he's a wonderful defendant for creative plaintiff lawyers. He's like suing an insurance company. No recovery problems, all you have to worry about is liability and quantum. Beautiful baby, as Austin Powers would say.
I have no insight into Avenatti. I am flabbergasted by his behavior. I can't see how having a fight with an opposing lawyer on TV is in his client's interests, and I suspect him of having had an ethics by-pass. He triggers my 'scumbag' alarm, which is on a hair trigger I'm afraid. I wonder whether he has children who want to be reality TV stars, and I blanched when I read the word President in relation to him. I would like to see Stormy Daniels get herself a lawyer who is focused solely on getting a good outcome for her (and their fees covered) out of what could be a very dangerous situation. She is not someone with much of a safety net if things go pear-shaped, from what I've heard.
Politico examines the relationship between Trump and Christian TV networks in the US. I didn't know Mike Huckabee had his own political show on CBN. How is this not a conflict of interest when his daughter is the WH press secretary?
I think Avenatti is just what is needed under these circumstances. The Wikipedia article on him is interesting. He was first in his class in law school, he has worked on many political campaigns in many states (for the Democrats) and he has been a litigator with many high-profile clients for 18 years. He is showing the world how to fight Trump. I think he may well succeed, perhaps by leveraging Trump's reluctance to be cross-examined under oath.
I doubt he has any serious interest in running for President; he wouldn't enjoy the strictures of the job and he's smart enough to know that. Besides, he would have to put his other interest (race-car driving) on hold.
Politico examines the relationship between Trump and Christian TV networks in the US. I didn't know Mike Huckabee had his own political show on CBN. How is this not a conflict of interest when his daughter is the WH press secretary?
In what sense would it be a conflict of interest? They are two different individuals.
In any case, the family business model is rife in large parts of American business and religion.
All I know is that if I were a journalist I would recuse myself from covering anything in which a close family member had as significant a role as Huckabee-Sanders does in the Trump administration, and I would consider similar guidelines to be absolutely standard in any major company's code of ethics.
What people don't seem to get about conflict-of-interest issues is that like many other laws perceived as restrictive, the rules are not there to thwart their opportunities but first and foremost to protect them from serious trouble down the line.
All I know is that if I were a journalist I would recuse myself from covering anything in which a close family member had as significant a role as Huckabee-Sanders does in the Trump administration, and I would consider similar guidelines to be absolutely standard in any major company's code of ethics
Though Huckabee is employed as a political commentator rather than a journalist; yes, there is a question as to whether he could provide 'non biased' commentary - but then I'm not sure what that means on CBN
Sources familiar with the tales say Sen. Jon Tester's committee staff is reviewing multiple allegations [ against Veterans Administration nominee Ronny Jackson ] of a "hostile work environment." The accusations include "excessive drinking on the job, improperly dispensing meds," said one of the people familiar, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the situation. The other people familiar with the stories also confirmed those details.
Maybe I'm nitpicking grammar, but isn't any drinking on the job by a doctor considered to be "excessive"?
Drinking on the job is often thought to happen in late stage alcoholism. The only other explanation I can think of is, since he is in the military his day does not really include time off for lunch. I remember a number of officers having a mini happy hour during their lunchs at the Officer's Club. But even then that would be suspect.
Is it ever appropriate to brush dandruff off a world leader in front of cameras?
“We have a very special relationship, in fact I’ll get that little piece of dandruff off,” Trump said during a brief appearance with the White House press pool. “We have to make him perfect — he is perfect.”
I came across the Detrumpify browser extension/add-on a couple of days ago, and I love it. Kind of like the Daily Mail blocker that takes a detour to a page of kittens. Except this, depending on settings, can replace pics of T and others with various mellow pics right on the page; and replace names with various levels of insults. Available for Firefox and Chrome. Not sure about other browsers.
I've been tinkering with the settings. Currently, it displays mellow pics *and* clean Shakespearean insults. (Well, I have it set to Clean and Shakespearean, but that's a bit of an oxymoron. Just not modern cuss words, though I think that's an option.)
IME, it works on most pages. (Mentioned in the link.) So I rarely have to see a pic of T. You can set how often you want things replaced, because it can slow down your Web-ing. AIUI, the code is available at Github, if you want to adjust it further.
Anyway, this may help ease the T-related stress many of us have mentioned.
Is it ever appropriate to brush dandruff off a world leader in front of cameras?
“We have a very special relationship, in fact I’ll get that little piece of dandruff off,” Trump said during a brief appearance with the White House press pool. “We have to make him perfect — he is perfect.”
Trump’s that guy who always reaches over to grab your arm when he shakes your hand and subtly insults you in front of other people, all to maintain top-dog status. Man those people are exhausting.
In ape world when the dominant male ape meets the ascending younger ape that will take over the silverback's rule, the silverback will attempt to groom the younger ape as a way of letting the younger ape know the silverback is still in charge. However, it also suggests submission to the younger ape because the silverback's influence on the clan begins to decline.
I saw something on PBS about how a gorilla becomes the head of his group. I think the previous guy dies or was deposed. Anyway, the new guy started changing dramatically. E.g., his body started bulking up. He wound up looking very different. Seemed like it might have happened over just a few days.
Strange. Various chemical/wiring changes triggered when he realized he was in charge?
Is it ever appropriate to brush dandruff off a world leader in front of cameras?
“We have a very special relationship, in fact I’ll get that little piece of dandruff off,” Trump said during a brief appearance with the White House press pool. “We have to make him perfect — he is perfect.”
Trump’s that guy who always reaches over to grab your arm when he shakes your hand and subtly insults you in front of other people, all to maintain top-dog status. Man those people are exhausting.
Yes but what is brilliant is that Macron plays him back at his own game (see the third video down on this page).
I saw something on PBS about how a gorilla becomes the head of his group. I think the previous guy dies or was deposed. Anyway, the new guy started changing dramatically. E.g., his body started bulking up. He wound up looking very different. Seemed like it might have happened over just a few days.
Strange. Various chemical/wiring changes triggered when he realized he was in charge?
Some years ago I used to watch Monkey World, which focussed on the work of a sanctuary in Dorset where they have rescued chimps (and other primates). In one of the groups, a young male, Hananya, ousted the dominant male, almost by accident. He was far too young to become top male, really. But once he had done so, his physical appearance changed very quickly. He bulked up and developed a silver back and so on. Quite fascinating. He was almost unrecognizable.
I suppose this is good for South Korea - I think. I'm undecided about whether it's also good for Australia.
Trump will have to go hunting for another donor /flunky for Australia if the usual pattern of US ambassadors to Aus is maintained.
Yeah it's a bummer, but the guy is needed in Korea. Its probably a good move. I think I'd prefer it if Trump just failed to get it together to appoint an ambassador. That way I can feign outrage in front of conservative Americans. In reality, its another brick in a solid alliance. Not needed, but it would be nice.
Meanwhile, in Arizona's special election to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the resignation of Trent Franks, Republican Debbie Lesko narrowly defeated Democrat Hiral Tipirneni in a district that in 2016 heavily went for the person who eventually was to occupy the White House.
Mrs. Lesko began her campaign with a positive TV ad outlining what she intended to do in Congress for Arizona (never mind that the issues she mentioned were not Federal issues). The ad contained not one syllable of negativity against Dr. Tipirneni (she is a practicing physician). Dr. Tipirneni countered with a negative ad against Mrs. Lesko that contained not one syllable of issues or why Arizonans could expect her to work for them in Congress. These ads were followed by two highly negative ads from each candidate, Mrs. Lesko's being particularly ugly, I thought.
I think Dr. Tipirneni would have had a better chance of winning this election if her media consultants had put up ads highlighting what needed to be done in Congress to counteract the extensive damage the current occupant of the White House and his minions have done to this country, why she was just the person to do it, and exactly what she intended to do. I had written to Dr. Tipirneni's campaign reminding them of how much the public hates negative ads, but received no reply.
Comments
IJ
I'm thinking that Trump is definitely going to characterize this suit as a panic move by the DNC, who know (still talking as Trump here) that Mueller has nothing and are just trying to make the fake which hunt last through the election.
So why now, and not a while ago?
There is definitely new information available to the DNC that wasn't available immediately after the election. A lot of it comes from Mueller's investigation, like the admissions in Papadopoulos' guilty plea. That was information the DNC didn't have until last October. There was a bare allegation that the Russian's hacked the DNC before the election, but the underlying evidence wasn't available to the public (and thus the DNC) until last month.
As for whether it's a political mistake, I don't know. Trump is going to cry "persecution" no matter what, even though he's not named as defendant in this suit, so trying to appease him is a sucker's game. For those lower down the food chain, I'd argue that the reason this dirty tricks campaign got so out of hand is that the participants calculated that nothing would happen to them if they got caught. The prospect of legal liability might change things going forward.
I'm not sure who you think is arguing this. On the other hand, if you're arguing that as long as a credible candidate exists in 2020 (and pretty much by definition all major party nominees are "credible") any cyber-warfare conducted against them is irrelevant, then that's a proposition I actually do disagree with.
I think that's a problem inherent in having a civil court system. The DNC is (allegedly) an injured party. Saying they shouldn't have access to the normal forms of redress the U.S. has established for these kinds of injuries seems like it would be an open invitation to further injury.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the institutions". The civil justice system would seem to be an "institution". I'm not sure leaving the protection of the electoral process solely in the hands of the criminal justice system is a great idea. For example, a recent civil suit by the ACLU seems to be doing a lot more to protect the rights of the voters of Kansas than the Voting Section of Jeff Sessions' Department of Justice. Go figure!
Yes, but the ACLU is an advocacy group, not a political party. By contrast, it's hard not to see how any DNC lawsuit, and the judges' rulings it would entail, could be anything other than hopelessly politicised.
Again, I'm at a considerable distance from all this, but it seems to me that fuelling a spirit of partisanship is the last thing the US needs right now.
[ETA I read Axelrod's tweet after composing this, not before]
The evidentuary rules of a civil suit is much different than the than the evidentuary rules of a criminal case. For one they do not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a crime has been committed; they only have to prove there is a preponderance of evidence that injury has been caused. Second, in a criminal case the focus is much narrower in scope. A civil injury case can be very wide. They will likely pull in information about how Cambridge Analytica helped to throw the vote. Third, they do not have to rely on a unanimous vote of the jury to convict; all that is needed is a unanimous vote of the peers to uphold the lawsuit.
Take the case of O.J. Simpson. While the prosecutors could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that O.J. did it. "If it does not fit, you must acquit," the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman was able to bankrupt Simpson by showing how O.J.'s actions resulted in the death of Nicole and Ron. Instead of relying on the gloves to prove OJ did it, the civil trial focused on the shoes that OJ allegedly wore at the time of the murder. The shoes were not allowed into evidence in the criminal trial, but the civil case allowed the evidence to be admitted. The shoes were size twelve (US) with a particular sole pattern. OJ claimed he would not wear such "a##hole" shoes, but the litigants had 30 photos of him actually wearing that type of shoe. They did not have to produce the shoes as evidence; the photos where sufficient.
From Friday's PBS Newshour: "DNC's Tom Perez: We were hacked, and we need to seek justice".
.
He was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, who kept bringing him back to the most important questions--the kinds of questions asked about the lawsuit in this thread. I think there are one or two other related segments. No transcript, but possibly closed captioning,
.
.FYI: this is the flagship news show of PBS. Much calmer style than commercial news shows.
Perez' arguments seem to be:
1. Need to sue before statute of limitations applies
2. Burden of proof is easier in civil court
3. Civil suits act as a strong deterrent
4. This not a partisan response but a "patriotic" response.
He says that the aim is to demonstrate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to interfere in the presidential election.
My response to that is:
1. If the harm is "patriotic" and not partisan then to my mind this should be a criminal and not a civil matter; it should be up to a prosecutor to decide whether there is enough evidence for charges to be brought in the name of the people.
2. Using the easier standard of proof in civil court as an argument sounds like an admission that the more serious charges cannot be made to stick with a higher standard of proof (to my ears at least)
3. The deterrent argument regarding civil suits I think just highlights the huge difference in litigation culture between the US and Europe. This is not a cultural difference I am keen to see disappear. It's also hard to see how a civil suit would deter the kind of meddling the Russians are being accused of.
Woodruff also quotes the Trump accusation that the DNC is nearly bankrupt (a charge Perez does not address in his answer) and I have to say this criticism crossed my mind too. I think a lot of civil lawsuits are highly dependent on who has the deepest pockets. I also don't think shifting the focus from winning elections to winning court cases is a good idea.
Finally, I think invoking precedent from Watergate is a bad idea here. The world is not the same as it was then, and attempts to make history repeat itself have a way of going off script.
ETA I also think this may decrease support from uncommitted voters. The argument is made that this is about more than partisan politics, but by bringing the suit in its own name the DNC has potentially alienated unaligned voters.
I think Eutychus makes good points. However, I can see why Perez is doing this, regardless of financial cost. There is some force in the deterrence argument. The 2018 midterms are very important.
I'm pretty sure that a DNC that won't stand up for voters is even more likely to alienate people. Another example that comes to mind is the DNC lawsuit that resulted from RNC voter caging and polling place intimidation tactics back in the 1980s. I'm not sure if potential voters would have been more impressed if the DNC had simply let that slide or counted on the Reagan administration to enforce the VRA. That's one of the big problems with fiddling with the electoral process; the usual means of correcting problems are, by definition, in the hands of those who are the beneficiaries of the corrupted system.
This is also, unsurprisingly, an argument that only ever gets trotted out when Democrats resort to the courts. No one seems to have worried overmuch about alienating independent voters when Republicans used the courts to hijack a presidential election.
Like l say, l think there's a big culture gap here.
[ETA Freudian typo. That should say brought]
Of course, I would agree that the US has more civil litigation than most countries, but it is possible to get sued in Europe as well.
'Mob boss' Trump is putting the normal checks and balances of the US system under unprecedented pressure.
With a criminal trial, a prosecutor has to decide the person is guilty; that there's a good chance of conviction; that it can be squeezed into the office workload; that it's worth the time, fuss, and cost; and possibly figure out which way the political winds are blowing.
I don't know if civil court has the same hoops to jump through.
The best arguments I have heard (elsewhere) for this suit is that it has a chance of getting the truth heard in court, which is a fail-safe in case the Mueller investigation never comes to prosecution/impeachment, and doing so before the midterms.
The main problem I have with it is that I find it a little disingenuous to bring a civil suit invoking patriotic grounds. A tort is to a private (legal) person, the DNC, not the country. Claiming your political party represents the entire country's interests is exactly the kind of thing that draws howls of protests from Democrats when the Republicans do it.
The second problem I have is that civil suits are Trump home territory. Granted, his preferred way out is to settle, and no doubt the DNC will refuse to do so on principle, but I am sure that the defence lawyers will use every trick in the book to stall these proceedings and drown the plaintiffs in paperwork, all of which will be an expense and a distraction to the DNC that I can imagine dragging out until after the midterms (certainly in France such a suit could).
In terms of civil suits, I think the Stormy Daniels one is much more appropriate. (Although I'm now wondering whether the ulterior motive of Avenatti isn't a shot at the presidency himself, see the end of this expletive-laden interview).
If this was filed in Australia, there would be no chance of getting to trial before November. US TV shows have taught me that there are things called depositions, which are sworn statements of evidence I imagine. At what stage these sworn statements would be made is outside my knowledge. If I was on the DNC's legal team, I would be positively salivating for them.
I disagree that Trump is a civil suit specialist. I think he's a specialist at throwing money at legal problems, which means he's a wonderful defendant for creative plaintiff lawyers. He's like suing an insurance company. No recovery problems, all you have to worry about is liability and quantum. Beautiful baby, as Austin Powers would say.
I have no insight into Avenatti. I am flabbergasted by his behavior. I can't see how having a fight with an opposing lawyer on TV is in his client's interests, and I suspect him of having had an ethics by-pass. He triggers my 'scumbag' alarm, which is on a hair trigger I'm afraid. I wonder whether he has children who want to be reality TV stars, and I blanched when I read the word President in relation to him. I would like to see Stormy Daniels get herself a lawyer who is focused solely on getting a good outcome for her (and their fees covered) out of what could be a very dangerous situation. She is not someone with much of a safety net if things go pear-shaped, from what I've heard.
I doubt he has any serious interest in running for President; he wouldn't enjoy the strictures of the job and he's smart enough to know that. Besides, he would have to put his other interest (race-car driving) on hold.
In what sense would it be a conflict of interest? They are two different individuals.
In any case, the family business model is rife in large parts of American business and religion.
What people don't seem to get about conflict-of-interest issues is that like many other laws perceived as restrictive, the rules are not there to thwart their opportunities but first and foremost to protect them from serious trouble down the line.
Or weep.
tipping my hat to FiveThirtyEight's Signficant Digits newsletter which I'm catching up on
Though Huckabee is employed as a political commentator rather than a journalist; yes, there is a question as to whether he could provide 'non biased' commentary - but then I'm not sure what that means on CBN
Maybe I'm nitpicking grammar, but isn't any drinking on the job by a doctor considered to be "excessive"?
I came across the Detrumpify browser extension/add-on a couple of days ago, and I love it. Kind of like the Daily Mail blocker that takes a detour to a page of kittens. Except this, depending on settings, can replace pics of T and others with various mellow pics right on the page; and replace names with various levels of insults. Available for Firefox and Chrome. Not sure about other browsers.
I've been tinkering with the settings. Currently, it displays mellow pics *and* clean Shakespearean insults. (Well, I have it set to Clean and Shakespearean, but that's a bit of an oxymoron.
IME, it works on most pages. (Mentioned in the link.) So I rarely have to see a pic of T. You can set how often you want things replaced, because it can slow down your Web-ing. AIUI, the code is available at Github, if you want to adjust it further.
Anyway, this may help ease the T-related stress many of us have mentioned.
Oh dear!
I suppose this is good for South Korea - I think. I'm undecided about whether it's also good for Australia.
Trump will have to go hunting for another donor /flunky for Australia if the usual pattern of US ambassadors to Aus is maintained.
I saw something on PBS about how a gorilla becomes the head of his group. I think the previous guy dies or was deposed. Anyway, the new guy started changing dramatically. E.g., his body started bulking up. He wound up looking very different. Seemed like it might have happened over just a few days.
Strange. Various chemical/wiring changes triggered when he realized he was in charge?
:whereisthethrowingupsmiliewhenineedit:
Some years ago I used to watch Monkey World, which focussed on the work of a sanctuary in Dorset where they have rescued chimps (and other primates). In one of the groups, a young male, Hananya, ousted the dominant male, almost by accident. He was far too young to become top male, really. But once he had done so, his physical appearance changed very quickly. He bulked up and developed a silver back and so on. Quite fascinating. He was almost unrecognizable.
Yeah it's a bummer, but the guy is needed in Korea. Its probably a good move. I think I'd prefer it if Trump just failed to get it together to appoint an ambassador. That way I can feign outrage in front of conservative Americans. In reality, its another brick in a solid alliance. Not needed, but it would be nice.
Mrs. Lesko began her campaign with a positive TV ad outlining what she intended to do in Congress for Arizona (never mind that the issues she mentioned were not Federal issues). The ad contained not one syllable of negativity against Dr. Tipirneni (she is a practicing physician). Dr. Tipirneni countered with a negative ad against Mrs. Lesko that contained not one syllable of issues or why Arizonans could expect her to work for them in Congress. These ads were followed by two highly negative ads from each candidate, Mrs. Lesko's being particularly ugly, I thought.
I think Dr. Tipirneni would have had a better chance of winning this election if her media consultants had put up ads highlighting what needed to be done in Congress to counteract the extensive damage the current occupant of the White House and his minions have done to this country, why she was just the person to do it, and exactly what she intended to do. I had written to Dr. Tipirneni's campaign reminding them of how much the public hates negative ads, but received no reply.