dagblog - Comments for "Fortitude"

Some tweets I've run across

artappraiser — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 03:36:26 +0000

In reply to Yeah Maddow reported on that

Just some of the tweets I've run across on the Whitaker @ World Patent Marketing story, suffice it to say that it's gone pretty viral

Matthew Whitaker received a subpoena in FTC investigation of Florida company in October 2017. He told the FTC he was too busy to respond because he was moving to Washington to become AG Sessions chief of staff. https://t.co/AsrpBo8tPn
— Rosalind Helderman (@PostRoz) November 9, 2018

In many ways, the patent-marketing scam Matthew Whitaker advised — which was shut down by the FTC last year — looks an *awful* lot like the Trump University scam https://t.co/vFKbjf4p8z
— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) November 9, 2018

Turns out #Whitaker was a big deal in the company FBI is investigating after FTC shut it down as a total fraud. Complaining clients, including vets defrauded of their life savings, were threatened with Krav Maga, a violent martial art. Note the MAGA part. Poetic justice!
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) November 10, 2018

Matt Whitaker was a paid consultant to a company that the FTC accused of fraud. Now he’s acting attorney general overseeing the FBI. Guess who’s investigating the company that previously employed him. Yep, you guessed it. Scoop w/ @markmaremont https://t.co/LAfiA9J3ol
— JamesVGrimaldi (@JamesVGrimaldi) November 9, 2018

You've gotta read this email https://t.co/EUYan1SUVo via @TPM
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 9, 2018

Since when can recipients of @FTC subpoenas just say they are too busy to comply?
Federal investigators scrutinized Whitaker’s role in patent company accused of fraud, according to people with knowledge of case https://t.co/xUBkopcoDG
— Stephen Calkins (@scalkins2) November 10, 2018

Yeah Maddow reported on that

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:59:00 +0000

In reply to Looks like Whitaker’s formal

Yeah Maddow reported on that a few minutes ago. Apparently he was very active with an outfit that was shut down by the FTC in account of massive fraud, including against veterans. Whitaker's threatening EM to an individual complaining about the fraud was shown.

Unclear what if anything Whitaker knew re the fraud. He strongly denied knowledge of it. Given his role with the company questions may be raised about how he could have been unaware of massive fraud and does it make sense that someone who on a best case scenario was clueless about what was going on around him should be running the US Department of Justice?

A WSJ reporter who helped break the story said the ethics advisors at Justice have been asked their opinion on whether he should recuse himself from overseeing the FBI investigation of the company.

We have come to expect utter incompetence out of this White House. One would think that had there been any vetting of Whitaker, any at all, that discovery of Whitaker's role with this troubled company might have nixed any notions of leapfrogging him over Senate-confirmed officials to run the US Justice Department. But that reflects pre-Trump norms for how these sorts of Cabinet-level appointments were handled.

Meanwhile Florida now has two statewide races headed for full recounts and lawsuits initiated by both sides. Also Bush-Gore 2000 blast from the past out of County thugs descending on Broward Board of Elections officials simply trying to complete the initial count.

Just another day in the life under today's Republican party troglodytes.

Looks like Whitaker’s formal

iphonermrd — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:20:50 +0000

In reply to So far, even Republicans who

Looks like Whitaker’s formal company is under FBI investigation

Oops

Yes, what it out of the

ocean-kat — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 22:40:12 +0000

In reply to I would have preferred if she

Yes, what is out of the question today can become a sure thing tomorrow if Mueller comes up with clear evidence of a crime. I'm not predicting either but it's certainly withing the realm of possibility.

I would have preferred if she

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 21:08:05 +0000

In reply to Surprised that Rubin thinks

I would have preferred if she had not weighed in fairly unequivocally on this question now when there is so much that is going to occur over the period of the next several weeks. She initially came out for impeachment some months back. Then she tempered her view on the advisability of going that route in favor of entertaining, at least, the thought that investigation and what it can yield short of impeachment could possibly be the preferable way to go.

She is publishing multiple pieces daily, responding to the very latest developments with her of-the-moment take. Her own views seem to be rapidly evolving in response to events. I'd like to think there are plausible scenarios where she might circle back, and turn her persuasive powers to advocating to identified GOP senators that coming out in support of impeachment might be their best option.

If and when a time comes when there is, say, a shift in public opinion in favor of impeachment or seeing Trump's approval ratings plummet dramatically, or calls for impeachment coming from some seemingly unlikely figures who have been holding back, it could happen very quickly. Tipping points occur in politics as elsewhere, where something that seems unlikely or impossible suddenly becomes inevitable. (Many thought Nixon would never, ever resign.) There can be a fast and furious rush to get to the front of the newest line that suddenly becomes the rage.

Most congressional Democrats just now are not going to publicly call for impeachment (the situation now is so fluid, however, that anything one says on this matter can change in a heartbeat.) unless they have some indication that enough Senate Republicans are open to supporting impeachment to give such an effort a chance to succeed.

There could come a point, however, at which one individual Republican senator (or a small group if they go with the safety-in-numbers play) decides to step forward and become proactive. That in turn could set off a mini-stampede of multiple Republican senators joining in. What may turn out to be attractive enough about such a scenario to cause it to happen is the opportunity it would provide some Republican senators to throw Trump under the bus, help their own re-election chances, and attempt to turn this ugly page (and dead end) for the GOP very quickly, with one fell swoop. A Republican senator making such a bold move might also do so with a plan to seek the GOP presidential nomination.

There would be much positive publicity and an opportunity to present oneself as a different kind of Republican showing leadership, courage, country-first patriotism, positive support for many deeply held American values, integrity, etc.

If you think that as a Republican senator up for re-election in 2020 that you are highly likely to lose by sticking with Trump you might conclude that flipping and taking a high road is your best shot.

I'm not predicting. I'm just saying--a scenario of Trump removal that many dismiss as a pipe dream even now could happen very quickly.

So far, even Republicans who

rmrd0000 — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:44:23 +0000

In reply to Surprised that Rubin thinks

So far, even Republicans who criticize Trump vote in lockstep with the Donald. I see them confirming Whitaker in short order. They gained Senate seats under Trump.

Surprised that Rubin thinks

artappraiser — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:17:49 +0000

In reply to Jennifer Rubin, "Nice

Surprised that Rubin thinks impeachment out of the realm of possibility with the new Senate. I have gotten the strong impression that only a very few GOP senators think Trump is an effective and good president and head of their party. They rest only pander or are chicken and go along because his fan base votes were needed but they know that the fan base is merely built of demagoguery. So if Trump comes out of Mueller really stinking and retains only a fan base of loony tunes conspiracists, I would think most would gladly turn on a Trump sinking ship. It's kind of puzzling why she thinks that, actually. I think the majority of GOP Senators would secretly think just lke her op-eds, they've just made the decision to play along now. Think: Romney, how he approaches it. Or Lamar Alexander, he goes along but draws a line in the sand with Mueller I see it more like this: most are just waiting on Mueller to see if he can come up with enough to make them able to get rid of this pain-in-the-neck lying asshole wrecking their political party. Heck, think Sec. Mattis or Kelly for that matter....

Strong majorities want this

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 19:09:39 +0000

In reply to Pelosi has been a great

Strong majorities want this Administration reined in. Pelosi will be more in the public eye in coming months. I believe many members of the public who have seen and heard the Fox caricature of her will, on actually seeing a bit more of her less filtered by her adversaries, find themselves pleasantly surprised.

Much of the heavy lifting will be done by a group of 4 or 5 key incoming Committee Chairs who are themselves impressive. The diverse, highly competent nature of this group of House Democrats will present a stark contrast to the unhinged, whiny, incoherent, transparently hypocritical and hyper-partisan rantings of the Republican senators and House members we've seen far too much of in the recent past.

Yes, the House needs a strong

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:56:36 +0000

In reply to Tim Ryan of Ohio is one of

Yes, the House needs a strong Speaker right now more than at most times in our history, someone who is not going to be pushed around, and who is also experienced and disciplined about not making many or serious errors.

Yes. She is tough and

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:49:40 +0000

In reply to Republicans attack Pelosi

Yes. She is tough and effective. She plays into the narrative the Republicans push of coastal, supposedly scary, ultra left- wing Democrats. (remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick and those really, really scary San Francisco Democrats, who if elected would probably do horrendous things like ignore 9/11 warnings, lie us into catastrophic Middle East wars, and make a ruinous hash of both social and fiscal policy at the same time, way back in 1984?)

No matter who the Speaker is the opposition would do what oppositions are supposed to do, which is oppose. For me as well it comes down to who is effective and is that person vigorously and unapologetically in support of the agenda of most of the party's caucus, which happens to include key policy items the country desperately needs? Yes to both questions.