Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[Tero]

Trump is going to fucking do it...talk to Mueller
“Now I'm F---ing Doing It My Way”: Jubilant and Self-Liberated, the President Prepares for War with Mueller
“He was like, everything’s great and these fuckers in the media are beside themselves.”
But Trump’s self-liberation comes at a dangerous moment, with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation reaching closer and closer, stoking Trump’s impulses to go to war. Earlier this month, Mueller crossed one of Trump’s stated “red lines” when he subpoenaed Trump Organization business records.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03 ... th-mueller

[Forty Two]

Trump is going to fucking do it...talk to Mueller
“Now I'm F---ing Doing It My Way”: Jubilant and Self-Liberated, the President Prepares for War with Mueller
“He was like, everything’s great and these fuckers in the media are beside themselves.”
But Trump’s self-liberation comes at a dangerous moment, with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation reaching closer and closer, stoking Trump’s impulses to go to war. Earlier this month, Mueller crossed one of Trump’s stated “red lines” when he subpoenaed Trump Organization business records.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03 ... th-mueller

Now Dowd being out is taking the gloves off? He's the guy who just told Mueller it was time to stop the bullshit investigation. Dowd, the voice of reason, now that he's out, Trump can really go to war

One outside adviser to the White House said Trump has recently mulled the concept of creating a new West Wing structure without a chief of staff, one that would instead have four co-equal principals reporting directly to him.

Vanity Fair invents a new position: "outside advisor to the White House." One of these outside advisors (there are apparently multiple ones) disclosed what Trump was mulling. I'm sure the "outside advisor" knows what he's talking about.

Trump seems to be loving his new freedom. “He was fucking excited and jubilant,” said one Trump friend who spoke to him in recent days. “He was like, everything’s great and these fuckers in the media are beside themselves.”

First, Trump, the client, isn't bound by his lawyer, Dowd. The client is the boss of the lawyer. So what "new" freedom did the President get? The freedom to do that which he had the freedom to do before?

Oh, and a "Trump friend" is quoted there? Does that sound like a "friend?" LOL. What friend would say that to the media? Or, was this someone reporting what the "Trump friend" said (hearsay within hearsay)? The article does not say. Did the author talk directly to the Trump friend, or is someone reporting what the Trump friend supposedly said. If one has friends like that, who needs enemies?

But Trump’s self-liberation comes at a dangerous moment, with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation reaching closer and closer,

Whoa! The author has information as to what Robert Mueller has found out! Mueller is "closer and closer" to nailing Trump! It's amazing! Nobody else has reported this amazing scoop! But, this author knows... closer and closer...it's so close it's a "dangerous moment" for Trump. One wrong move, and Trump is found out. Gotten. His collusion with Russia will be proved! They're sooooo close... but, the author protects sources and methods by not disclosing a single fact to support the allegation..... good reporting.

And, then the article says time after time that Trump is "on the attack" and "on the offensive" etc. -- because of what? He comments on the investigation? He says there are too many hardened Democrats on the case, Hillary supporters and zero Republicans. He's right. That's who is on the investigation. But the article calls being "on the attack." He hasn't done anything. He hasn't hindered anything. He's just pointed out how Mueller has a bunch of people who have political biases working on the case. That's an "attack?"

What's his new "offensive?" Abandoning the "go along get along strategy" that he had been engaged in for more than a year. That's an "offensive?" I'm no longer just going to sit here and take it? That's an "offensive?" Jesus fucking Christ. And, the author needs another adjective to pepper the article, so Trump "unilaterally" abandoned the go along get along strategy. Oh, no! He "unilaterally" did it? That's crazy! I mean, surely he would need to coordinate his abandonment of his defense strategy with Mueller, right? He didn't arrange a multilateral abandonment of the goalong getalong strategy. That's an "offensive!" He's out of his mind for doing that unilaterally!

The genial and mustachioed Cobb has always been somewhat of an odd fit for Trump, whose mental picture of a lawyer is Roy Cohn, his early mentor. Sources said Trump reluctantly conceded to allow Cobb to play good cop. “Trump is looking at this saying, I did it your way for months, now I’m fucking doing it my way,” a former West Wing official said.

More total bullshit. Someone is actually saying what they think Trump's "mental picture" of a lawyer is? They know this? Trump must have said to the anonymous source "you know, Roy Cohn is what picture as a lawyer, not Ty Cobb. Ty Cobb is too genial and and mustachioed." Oh, and a "former west wing official" - was apparently sneaking around the White House the other day when Trump was dumping his legal team and hear Trump say "I did it your way, now I'm fucking doing it my way!" LOL. Oh, I'm sure the "former White House official" must have been cleaning out his desk at the time, right -- so, which "white house official was fired in the last four or five days? That's the guy who heard it, right? Must have been, because if the guy was gone already before that, he wouldn't have heard Trump say anything because he'd no longer be in the fucking White House. It's absurd.

No source, not even an anonymous one, cited for this ditty --

In private, Trump friends and outside advisers have been stoking his desire to go on the offensive for months. Trump has heard that his lawyers are “idiots”; that Mueller’s probe is a “coup d’etat”; and that Trump’s only crime is having “won the election.”

The author must have talked more "Trump friends" who wagged their gums about how they were telling Trump that his lawyers - some of the best in the country - were "idiots". Oh, and here are the "outside advisers" are back again. Who are examples of "outside advisers?" LOL. The autnhor knows. Nobody else does. But this author knows that there are advisers who are "outside" of the White House and not only are they out flapping their gums about Trump considering a restructuring of the West Wing, but while they're advising Trump on that issue, they're "stoking his desire to go on the offensive." So, the advisors themselves are advising him to go on the offensive. Query: should he take the advice of his advisers this time, or is this a time when the advisers ought not be listened to? Because all through the media reports, Trump is a loose cannon for not listening to advisers. Here, he has advisers advising him to disregard the advice of other advisers. I'm sure the author has it right. It's a well-sourced article, after all...

The article says "white shoe" law firms don't want to represent him. The only example is Ted Olson, who declined but did not say why. The article then speculates that other people Trump is rumoured, but not proven, to have approached also turned him down, which is without any evidence in the article - not a single source. And, then the article says that's why Trump hired an "aggressive" lawyer like diGenova. LOL. Yesyes....because the big, giant "white shoe" law firms are not "aggressive." I've got news for this jackass Vanity Fair author. The folks at the "white shoe" law firms are not pillars of fucking virtue. What a fucking dipshit. They are the big 100 year old firms that represent the richest people in the world and the biggest companies in the world. You think they're not fucking "aggressive?" Fucking moron...

And then there is this incoherent nonsense:

Sources also said that Trump is considering hiring back Marc Kasowitz to serve on his defense team. “They’re talking a lot,” one Republican briefed on the conversations said. (Kasowitz did not respond to a request for comment.) Bringing back Kasowitz would be a sign of how rattled Trump is by the looming prospect of being interviewed by Mueller. Last July, Trump sidelined Kasowitz after it was revealed he struggled with alcoholism and told a stranger to “watch your back, bitch” in an e-mail. (Kasowitz has denied reports of alcohol abuse.) Sources also said Kasowitz’s return would be a signal that Trump is willing to put his own survival ahead of his family. A month before Kasowitz was ousted, a former White House official told me, he had told Trump that Jared Kushner needed to leave the White House.

Marc Kasowitz is a drunk and dumbass (telling people to "watch your back, bitch.") But, Trump is so "rattled" by the prospect of talking to Mueller that he wants to bring back the drunk to represent him, because apparently Trump thinks the drunk will..... what? Be able to keep Mueller off Trump's back? That'll show Mueller! And, it's Trump's current legal guys, like Dowd, who were telling him NOT to interview with Mueller. They were the ones keeping Trump from talking. Trump wants to "fucking do it his way" and talk to Mueller, but that prospect - doing what the article says he's been itching to do for months, only to be prevented and thwarted by his own legal team -- is "rattling" him now. What is this fucking bullshit?

And, bringing back Kasowitz would be putting his own survival ahead of his family? Why? Because Kasowitz is said by someone (unverified) to have told Trump that Kushner needed to leave the White House? What's the big deal? Does that mean Trump has to follow that advice? The article is fucking declaring that Trump doesn't follow anyone's advice, and yet he's going to be hamstrung by the vulgar, drunk Kasowitz?

Gabriel Sherman? What a fucking load of unsupported, convoluted, self-contradictory horse-shit. Hit piece is giving it far more credit than it deserves. What a poorly written, poorly sourced, Bush League pile of dung. Vanity Fair should be ashamed.

[Forty Two]

Of course Of course. It is all fake news. JFCOAPS!!!

All, no. But the idea that any "anonymous source" knows why Dowd resigned is facially absurd. If they do, it's because Dowd committed breach of legal ethics, Trump would have reason to really flip out, as he is accused of doing at the drop of a hat. What do you think Trump would say if his own lawyer disclosed that he was resigning because Trump would not take the lawyer's advice? That's injurious to Trump. A lawyer, acting contrary to the interests of his client.

And, that makes sense to you? Only someone who is looking to reaffirm what they already presuppose -- i.e. you and certain others -- could swallow that without a a kilo of sugar.

[pErvinalia]

Either Dowd's or Trump's secretaries could have typed/seen the letter from Dowd to Trump. They wouldn't be bound by client-attorney privilege, would they?

[Forty Two]

Either Dowd's or Trump's secretaries could have typed/seen the letter from Dowd to Trump. They wouldn't be bound by client-attorney privilege, would they?

Oh yes they would. Secretaries read all sorts of confidential memos, loaded with attorney client privilege. In the US, attorney client privilege extends to the entire firm and all of its employees, contractors, and agents, provided the person is acting as an agent of the lawyer in the provision of legal advice. A secretary typing a memo which contains legal advice is covered by the attorney client privilege. If that's who did it, it's an ethical violation of both Dowd and the secretary.

Dowd did not set forth his reason for resigning in a resignation letter. If it's in writing, nobody knows about it, and the author of this article cites nothing of the kind, and does not indicate that someone read it somewhere. These are sources whose means of knowing what they know is not specified.

However, attorneys are very careful about attorney client privilege. It can get you disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and can lose your client their case. A breach of the privilege can, in many cases, "waive" the privilege for all purposes. Someone in Dowd's position with his experience would act accordingly as if it was second nature - wouldn't even have to think about it. No legal advice or confidential information would be shared without everyone in the room being covered by the privilege. That's law school ethics 101.

That's why the Wall Street Journal's article on it is far more credible. They noted that Dowd was asked about why he quit, and Dowd said "no." That's a lawyer's answer. He's not going to say shit about what was advised or what advice Trump did not take. The anonymous source in question is one of these "familiar with..." sources who is speculating, but not knowing, and the reporter is just typing out what some fucking leaker is blurting to the press.

And more articles which identify zero sources. No national security issue. They're reporting gossip, and hiding the source. Sure, the source might get fired. But they're reporting gossip. They should be fired. This is not a source reporting illegal activity. This is a source saying why Trump's lawyer quit.

[pErvinalia]

Trump's staff aren't bound by client-attorney privilege are they?

[Brian Peacock]

Don't be silly, the #FAKENEWSMEDIA is just making it up like they always have and they always will.

[pErvinalia]

42 may be right in this case, but as usual he acts as if there is only a narrow set of explanations for an event, and it couldn't have possibly happened another way.

[Brian Peacock]

Are you a Marxist shill?

[Sean Hayden]

[Forty Two]

Trump's staff aren't bound by client-attorney privilege are they?

They are if they're part of the White House, and the attorney is White House counsel. It's like if an attorney represents Coca Cola, and meets with the President and Vice President - that's covered, and people acting on behalf of the company in relation to the legal matter also covered.

Lawyers are very careful to keep third parties who destroy the privilege out of the room. Also, there is absolutely no reason for Dowd to tell anyone why he's resigning. And quite importantly, he hasn't told anyone - no reporter or article has said anything about Dowd telling anyone.

The article posted here, for example, refers, of course, to unnamed persons of unspecified position, without any reference to how they supposedly know this sensitive information. And, if Trump for a second thought Dowd or another member of the legal team leaked it -- given how "furious" and "hitting the roof" Trump gets, according the media, about the smallest slight -- what do you think his reaction would be to that? An attorney representing him broke the privilege and embarrassed Trump?

This is the problem with all these anonymous sources. The media just doesn't stop with it. I have no objection to the appropriate use of anonymous sources - when you're busting an illegal activity and the whistleblower needs protection. Or, when it's Snowden and the media is getting the scoop on government spying and he is in danger by disclosing the info. Sure. Clearly the news media must protect its sources. But those sources are carefully vetted and the news media is supposed to take accuracy very seriously and take time to verify the information first, to make sure the whistleblower is legitimate. Here, they just report any fucking bullshit some "unnamed official" slings at them.

And, it's not just about Trump, although Trump is the target of so much of it over the last 2 years. This will be just as damaging to Democrats because the anti-Democrat crowd will say that we don't need verification of anonymous sources for scurrilous allegations because we didn't need it for Trump.

[Brian Peacock]

Dowd is out of the WH loop now. He's persona non grata and so anything reported about what he's said or thought is automatically rendered #FAKENEWS. As a result we must avoid talking about what's been reported and stick to questioning his legitimacy, motives, and character.

[Joe]

Of course Of course. It is all fake news. JFCOAPS!!!

All, no. But the idea that any "anonymous source" knows why Dowd resigned is facially absurd. If they do, it's because Dowd committed breach of legal ethics, Trump would have reason to really flip out, as he is accused of doing at the drop of a hat. What do you think Trump would say if his own lawyer disclosed that he was resigning because Trump would not take the lawyer's advice? That's injurious to Trump. A lawyer, acting contrary to the interests of his client.

And, that makes sense to you? Only someone who is looking to reaffirm what they already presuppose -- i.e. you and certain others -- could swallow that without a a kilo of sugar.

Speaking of reaffirming what you already presuppose, you've missed an obvious possibility. Rather than Dowd failing his duty of confidentiality, the President could have discussed it with the source.

After all, it's not like it's a state secret, and Trump is the client. He has every right to ask Dowd to resign, for whatever reason, and discuss it with anybody he likes.

[Sean Hayden]

42 misses nothing. He's a Republican shill.

[Joe]

I don't know what he does for work, or feel that I should guess, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."