The First 100 days

Earth Day 2018 saw CO2 Emissions in the US at a 25-Year low, the lowest levels since 1992

 

The democrat clown show continues.

 

I would immediately force plaintiff to produce its server

 

So, I trolled a friend in Austin regarding the DNC lawsuit that has a severe case of TDS:

 

A translation of the chants has been posted as --

"Our enemy is here in Iran, you lie to us that our enemy is the US"
"Such a disgrace is this media"
"I kill traitor to my country"

 

I can't wait until reality 101 hits your friend and the rest of the libs right between the eyes. It might be a bigger meltdown than the 2016 meltdown.

 

Or ....

 

They were being briefed that this information was about to go public. If Trump nor Obama knew about it before that moment they were told by Comey then we have worse intelligence problems than by a partisan DOJ or a partisan group trying to tear apart the institution to defend their team.

It was an open investigation into collusion. Apparently you think Trump should have access to the evidence. There was damaging info that was impending to hit mainstream. Consider it a courtesy.

Really? Discredited partisan? Did JoeFan or Garmel steal your logins because "discredited" is a partisan viewpoint that isn't supported by the fact at this time.

Objective. This post PROVES it. Your patience of gone so NOW you're going to jump to conclusions rather than let the facts play out. At least you're admitting that you've started with a position and simply got tired of hoping for the facts to support it. Now...why wait, right?

I haven't stated anything but you've just declared innocence. Good for you. Project much?

Glorifying him how? On your very next statement you show how they are NOT glorifying him. Seems to me that Comey is taking shots from all sides. You might only be seeing what you want to see.

 

Probably an attempt for fundraising. They will drop the suit as soon as it becomes uncomfortable

 

This lawsuit doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For one thing, it undermines Robert Mueller's work in some ways. Second, everybody involved has a way to go on the offensive that didn't exist before. Pretty much everything the DNC and its people did in 2016 are now on the table, and ace litigators are going to be involved. Hillary Clinton, DWS, and the party's key leaders are going to get deposed, and it's going to be a level of scrutiny they've never faced in their lives. Third, what if the lawsuit flops? Basically you'll have a judicial finding that they were full of crap. Could they drop the suit when it becomes uncomfortable? Yes, but that's even worse. That's the DNC admitting that they were full of crap.

It's a ballsy move. They either have something completely ironclad to use on Trump, or they're willing to take the political gamble of the century. With 2018 looking good for them, I'm not sure it's worth it. It could blow up in their faces too easily.

 

@Mr. Deez, do you think it is likely about their possibly having something ironclad? I mean, wouldn't they have divulged that a long time ago seeing as how they never wanted him sworn in?

 

It's seems premature at best. Why not wait for Mueller's investigation to complete before filing this, if he finds evidence of collusion?

Maybe this is a political stunt to keep the attention on Trump/Russia? It seems that the LyinComey and smear Mueller campaign from the right is working based on the the shift in some of the more rational conservative positions towards Pro-Trump.

 

It is a political stunt, and I understand the potential upside, but it's an all-or-nothing move. There's some real risk here. It's going to open up doors for a lot to get thrown at them. Furthermore, is everything they're alleging even actionable? If not, this thing could get tossed on summary judgment. Even if it is actionable, what if they can't find admissible evidence tying Trump to it? That has been the problem since Day 1 It still gets tossed on summary judgment. If that happens, this thing is over.

But it's more than over. There will be judicial finding that Trump can throw in their faces. It'll be over, and the accusers will be discredited. Furthermore, Trump will have the political cover to fire Mueller and end his investigation. I don't think it'll discredit Mueller, because he has generally kept his mouth shut and done his work. However, the politicians and pundits who made the Trump-Russia Apocalypse a big part of their agenda will never be taken seriously again.

 

I have no idea. I'm just trying to concoct a scenario in which this lawsuit could go well for the DNC. It's possible that they've just recently acquired the piece of ironclad evidence. Hard to say.

 

Do they need to tie it to Trump or simply his campaign? Based on publicly available information we already know that Papadopolous was meeting with Russian envoys with advance notice of the email hacks (March?). Additionally, Roger Stone was deep in conversations with Assange and Guccifer 2.0. If they were to say the "Trump Campaign" was working with the Russians aren't those significant threads to tug on?

The risk is that the R's would dredge up the network security and try to prove it was an inside hack. The D's better be ready to fight their way through that smoke screen, if it truly is one.

 

Tying it to the campaign is enough to keep the lawsuit going if the Court finds the case actionable. (Keep in mind that Trump hasn't been sued.) It's true that these guys met with some Russians, but a court of law is going to hold those meetings to a higher level of scrutiny than the court of public opinion will. Innuendo isn't going to cut it. They'll have to come up with evidence that something nefarious was plotted in those meetings.

They can do a lot more than that. The Damages section of the lawsuit basically claims every problem the DNC had in terms of messaging, turnout, fundraising, etc. on the alleged conspiracy. The GOP will argue that other factors caused their defeat - Hillary and DWS screwing Bernie, Hillary being a liar, Hillary being a crook, etc. The possibilities area limitless. Do they really want that kind of issue to become the subject of litigation and discovery? With Democrats in the driver's seat going into November, I have hard time seeing how it's smart to dredge those issues back up.

 

Only explanation I can see is that they know the Mueller investigation is winding down and he doesn't have anything. If they file a lawsuit, they can basically control the narrative rather than leaving it to Mueller. They know that if they make it high profile, they can probably get the media to focus on them, and minimize the impact of Mueller's probe, since now there's a "real" lawsuit, so it doesn't matter anymore that Mueller doesn't have anything. There's absolutely no reason to file this lawsuit if you think Mueller's going to have something.

The lawsuit lets them keep the fight alive into the midterms, keeps the base angry and active and encouraged. They want the hope of impeachment alive going into midterms to keep voter turnout high. The lawsuit likely won't flop before then - unless there's something going on I don't see (which is very possible.) And even if it fails, so what? As we've seen, if people are determined to believe Trump is guilty, they're going to believe it. No verdict will change that.

This can only be an attention-diversion and a fundraiser.

 

Mueller will exonerate Trump in 2 weeks with Rudy on board. DNC getting ahead of the curve. In response, they will move the focus to the campaign, Roger Stone, etc.

I have a friend in Austin who has TDS bad. He is 50+, lawyer, and works for a state agency. He was on staff at the State Capitol working for a Republican Senator 20 years ago. He is nuttier than that crazy Switzer Sooner who posts here. He literally cannot accept Trump. Seriously, the DNC is likely saving millions from suicide via this lawsuit if Mueller publicly clears Trump.

 

Great minds and all .....

This is another smart tweet because liberals are retweeting it 100s of timea to point out he wrote "Wendy." But then they notice the "mystery man" comment and get a quick education since CNN/MSNBC/the NYT have never covered this story.


Think of what all this filing could lead to --
Depose Steele
Depose FusionGPS
Depose the Podesta Bros
Depose media that ran FusionGPS' bogus stories (and got paid for it?)
Depose McCabe
Depose Comey
Depose Strzok (and his lover, Page)
Depose FBI ex-lawyer Baker
Depose DC police on Seth Rich
Depose Mrs. Weiner
Depose Mills
And depose Hillary under oath this time!!!

 

Dinner Companion #1 tonight at Saltgrass: "To understand Trump you have to look at the Tea Party"

Dinner Companion #2: 'No, you gotta go back to Nixon in '68"

Me: "Y'all are like a tiny babies. It goes much further back"

 

What the graph really shows is that energy consumption in the US is down to 1992 levels. A small percentage of that has to do with improved energy efficiency. I strongly suspect that the most of that decline has to do with reduced coal usage and reduced industrial output. I know our economy has rebounded since the 2008 crisis. But the rebound was weak and slow. Thanks Obama. I believe industrial output is just starting to recover.

 

I still don't think it's a smart move. First, they already control the narrative, because the media is going to give them that control. That has been true since the New Deal, but it's more true now than it has ever been. By its very design, a lawsuit, if anything, disrupts that, because it's going to create a high-profile forum in which the GOP is going to be allowed to conduct discovery and move the ball just as much as the Democrats are. That's a net loss for them.

Second, bad things are going to get dredged up again that would otherwise be dying stories. DWS screwing with Bernie Sanders, Hillary's ethical problems, etc. will all become relevant topics all over again. That's not good for them. It looks bad, and it demotivates what would otherwise be a very amped up base. DWS and HRC are going to get deposed about that stuff. It's not hard to find a lawyer who's better than I am, but if I got a bite at that apple, somebody's spleen would be on the wall by the time it was over. It wouldn't be pretty, and Trump's people should be able to do much better. (Hopefully he'll find somebody better than Michael Cohen. I've never seen someone so wealthy be so poorly represented in my life. There are broke-*** hood ornament thieves who hire better lawyers than Trump did.)

Third, the case won't be over by election day, but Democrats won't be able to control its pace. The judge will issue a scheduling order that's going to determine when things happen. The discovery (including oral depositions) could happen before election day, which means there will be video clips of them getting battered with lies and sleazy things they've been caught in but never had to answer for, because the political media never held them to account.

On a superficial level, I can see the strategy, but there are just way too many ways in which it could go wrong for too little upside. It's very high-risk. Frankly, it would make a lot more sense if they were losing in the generic ballot and needed something to shake things up. They aren't in that situation.

 

Everything you say is true, but it assumes that democrats as a whole are acting rationally right now, and they're not. All they can see is Trump. They've inculcated themselves with the idea that Trump is a Russian pawn for so long that they're now convinced it's true up and down the party. It's like the dog chasing the bone when he's so focused on the bone that he stops paying attention to where he's going or what's going on around him, smashing into walls, knocking stuff over...

Plus, I think that despite everything that's happened, they can't give up on the playbook that's worked for so long. "We'll file suit, the media will take our side, we'll destroy Trump in the press, and all we really need to do is move a fraction of Trump voters over, and we win." And in theory, it could work. But the problem is that they assume that sliver hates Trump as much as they do; they in most cases don't like Trump, but not enough not be OK with the kind of partisan craziness that this displays. When you constantly trumpet an investigation, claim it's going to prove Trump guilty, defend the prosecutor's integrity and basically say that his decision will be above dispute - and then when it looks like he's not going to rule for you, you reject his findings and go file another lawsuit - that's a whole new level of crazy.

 

Only 8m

 

Too bad. The country would be better of without them.

 

Your points are good, but this sentence warrants commentary. I don't think actual trial court level litigation has been a big part of their playbook. Don't misunderstand. Obviously they've used the courts as a vehicle to force their policy agenda a lot, but that's a court deciding a pure question of law and nothing else. Facts and evidence in those cases are of little or no consequence, because they're usually not in dispute. This is a different ball game, because facts and evidence are major factors.

Second, certainly the media will take their side as they always do. However, it's a lot harder to be one-sided about a court case than about vague and general political topics and campaigns. Eventually somebody is going to ask what the court and the defense are actually doing.

On a different note, I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but the case against WikiLeaks is based on their publication of the emails. Why is that a big deal? Because if the court goes along with that, it'll basically make it illegal for any media outlet to publish something that became public through illegal means. That means that the media outlets who published Edward Snowden's information could be sued. Ditto for "Chelsea" Manning's leaks. Ditto for the Pentagon Papers. It would be the biggest restriction on the freedom of the press in at least a century. Let's put it this way. If this case involved anybody but Donald Trump, the media would be losing their minds.