Red_Dragon wrote: 
  Did you see the John Oliver bit on Sunday?  Giuliani is a perfect Trump flunkee.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/john-oliver-on-rudy-giulianis-career-of-bizarre-media-moments-w519870

Trump considers benching Giuliani from doing TV interviews

 miamizsun wrote: 

"i'm not quite sure but are you concerned that libertarianism philosophy applied to politics will lead to expanding and or wasteful government programs? (and yes we could move it over to that thread and continue as time allows)

disclaimer: i haven’t always agreed with the aclu but  am a supporter"

 
I should have written more clearly—my goof. My take is that voters of all persuasions, libertarian and otherwise, should guard against letting government programs expand or survive if they've outlived their usefulness or have morphed away from their original missions. I don't think libertarianism encourages expansion of government, but instead tries to fight that expansion. In general I believe most national governments aren't trying to actively suppress individual rights and freedoms but tend to infringe on them if those governments don't face public scrutiny and pushback.

I think that libertarians fail to recognize and yield to the need for collective action that may curtail individual freedoms. I was appalled when I watched a video of  Gary Johnson (the Libertarian Party candidate in '16 and I think in '12 as well) stating that global warming is inevitable since the sun will eventually burn too brightly for the survival of life on earth. He was trying to imply that we shouldn't do anything collectively about global warming, but he couldn't be bothered to add that the life-killing brightening won't happen for a billion years.

Honestly: there may be some good things to say about libertarianism, but Gary Johnson is a complete idiot.

I do believe that libertariansim could have positive, forceful things to say about the preservation of individual privacy and individual rights, especially when an individual is pitted against government forces. Our legal system is failing people who can't afford good legal representation and is allowing prosecutorial misconduct (such as the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence to defense counsel) to go unpunished on a large scale. However, I don't see the state as a hostile force intent on seizing and holding power for power's sake.

Also, I think Silverglate is hysterical and unbalanced when he claims that the "permanent law enforcement bureaucracy" will seek to remove any leader who gets in the bureacracy's way as "an assertion of power." That is a deeply irresponsible accusation. I also don't believe that Mueller's investigation into Trump is corrupt, illegal or outside the bound of the law. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Mueller and former special prosecutors work within the framework of our legal system and under judicial oversight.

If Silverglate and/or Dershowitz can provide real evidence of excessive or illegal actions taken by Mueller and Co., I would read the two lawyers' statements with real interest. I have no time for baseless conspiracy thinking about "the Deep State" working to remove Trump from office.

I support the ACLU although I have disagreed with positions taken by some of its employees, such as opposition to CCTV surveillance of public areas. 

Running gov as a biz...
Mar-a-Lago events raise money for politicos, revenues for Trump

The Damage of Trump’s Low-Bar Presidency Is Worse Than You Think

 miamizsun wrote: 
I think what you may be engaging in is a false equivalence.

Almost all of the calls for prosecutorial reform have to do with crimes on the other end of the scale from white collar crime committed by corrupt officials and wealthy/connected people.

People who have property seized under "tough on crime" seizure laws tend to be poor, not politicians. I would guess that victims of the type of abuse the ACLU has concerns about tend to be minority as well, and likely don't have access to legal representation. They're easy marks for overzealous, lower level prosecutors to be sure.

When it comes to exposing and prosecuting white collar crime and political corruption, the handful of prosecutions seen are likely the tip of a very big iceberg. Such criminals tend to have well paid, and usually competent legal help (Trump being a notable exception), and are usually reasonably adept at hiding evidence of their crimes. Even nonpolitical white collar criminals tend to be politically connected, allowing them to exert leverage to delay or quash investigations that should be carried out. It seems to me the deck is stacked quite profoundly in their favor, making such prosecutions an uphill climb. Not saying that the handful of prosecutors who take on such challenging investigations and prosecutions aren't human and subject to themselves being corrupted, bending/breaking the rules, etc. But I'm leery of further diluting the powers they do have to conduct investigations and bring charges when appropriate if it will inordinately curtail their ability to do their job. There's little enough incentive for wealthy and powerful/politically connected individuals to refrain from lawbreaking and corruption as it is.

 kcar wrote: 

i'm not quite sure but are you concerned that libertarianism philosophy applied to politics will lead to expanding and or wasteful government programs? (and yes we could move it over to that thread and continue as time allows)

disclaimer: i haven’t always agreed with the aclu but  am a supporter

why would two arguably prominent liberal attorneys seem so out of step with their political preferences?

silverglate and dershowitz are staunch aclu supporters (and you can see a bit about all that below or on their website)

are they passionate about it? yes, especially silverglate, he has practically devoted his entire career to this principled cause (civil rights issues)

like everyone else on the planet, the aclu and it’s members and supporters aren’t perfect

but they’re generally doing very good work

so how can they (the aclu and their members) rip the trump admin (and other gov entities) on one hand for bad policy and then defend his rights on the other?

simple, they’re operating on principle not politics

 

WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO

The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups—particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person's rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it's too late.

Since we can't take on every worthy case, we usually select lawsuits that will have the greatest impact, cases that have the potential for breaking new ground and establishing new precedents that will strengthen American freedoms.

AND HOW WE DO IT

We have grown from that roomful of civil libertarians to more than 1.75 million members. The ACLU today is the nation's largest public interest law firm, with a 50-state network of staffed, autonomous affiliate offices. We appear before the United States Supreme Court more than any other organization except the U.S. Department of Justice. About 100 ACLU staff attorneys collaborate with about 2,000 volunteer attorneys in handling close to 2,000 cases annually.

The ACLU is non-profit and non-partisan. We do not receive any government funding. Member dues and contributions and grants from private foundations and individuals pay for the work we do. The ACLU, with headquarters in New York City, litigates across the nation and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Washington, D.C., legislative office lobbies the U.S. Congress. We use strategic communications to educate the public about issues. And the ACLU has expanded its reach by applying international human rights standards in our complex Post 9/11 world. A number of national projects address specific civil liberties issues: AIDS, capital punishment, lesbian and gay rights, immigrants' rights, prisoners' rights, reproductive freedom, voting rights, women's rights and workplace rights.

 

• The Power of Prosecutors | American Civil Liberties Union
•  
• Tough-on-Crime Prosecutors Are Out of Step With Public Views
•  
• Americans Overwhelmingly Support Prosecutorial Reform
•  
• ACLU Launches New Initiative to Overhaul Prosecutorial Practices
•  
• Prosecutors Hid Evidence of Corey Williams' Innocence
•  
• ACLU Statement on DOJ Decision to Shift Federal Government's Role

 steeler wrote: 
It's kinda my thing.

Trump may think that North Korea will agree to denuclearization, but we would never be able to confirm that NK had actually kept that promise.

Verifying the End of a Nuclear North Korea ‘Could Make Iran Look Easy’

...

As a result, the first step in any meaningful agreement would be a declaration from North Korea about the scope of its nuclear program, a declaration that no one would believe.

It would have to be followed by what experts call the most extensive inspection campaign in the history of nuclear disarmament, one that would have to delve into a program that stretches back more than half a century and now covers square miles of industrial sites and hidden tunnels across the mountainous North. And it might demand more than the 300 inspectors the International Atomic Energy Agency now deploys to assess the nuclear facilities of nearly 200 countries.

...


While there is no question Iran hid much of its weapons-designing past, North Korea has concealed programs on a far larger scale and built an arsenal of 20 to 60 nuclear warheads — compared with none in Iran. In fact, the Iran inspections, the I.A.E.A. says, have gone on without a hitch in the past two years, though it is a far smaller, comparatively easier effort.

...


Four years ago, the RAND Corporation, which often conducts studies for the Defense Department, estimated that finding and securing the North’s weapons of mass destruction if the nation fell apart — or into any situation in which it might be hostile to inspection — could require up to 273,000 troops. That is far more than the peak of the American occupying force in Iraq.


...

Everyone agrees that such a program of disarmament would involve the North’s surrendering its nuclear arms. But American intelligence agencies have vastly differing estimates of the size of the arsenal, be it the C.I.A.’s assessment of around 20 nuclear weapons or the Defense Intelligence Agency’s estimate of about 60. That means it is possible that inspectors would never know for sure if they had found everything.

Trump lawyer doesn't rule out other 'nuisance' payments to silence women

U.S. President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday he would not rule out the possibility that payments were made to women other than porn star Stormy Daniels to get them to stay silent about accusations against Trump.

Giuliani told ABC's This Week that he had no knowledge of whether former Trump attorney Michael Cohen had other payments but he said, "I would think if it was necessary, yes. He (Cohen) made payments for the president or he's conducted business for the president." (...)

Avenatti has said his team has been approached by multiple other women about Trump and he believed evidence would emerge of similar payments.

"The president had effectively an extramarital affair slush fund that was administered by Michael Cohen and that he would just be expected to take care of these things," he said on ABC.

Frank Rich: Roy Cohn, Donald Trump, and the New York Cesspool That Created Them

Beats regime change at home?
Giuliani: Trump is 'committed to' regime change in Iran

---

U.S. President Donald Trump is "committed" to regime change in Iran, Trump's lawyer and confidante Rudy Giuliani said on Saturday. The unusual statement comes just days before Trump will have to make a dramatic decision on the fate of the nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, said at an event hosted by an Iranian opposition group in Washington that regime change in Iran is "the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East."

The president is "as committed to regime change as we are," Giuliani said in his address. Giuliani predicted that Trump will withdraw the United States from the 2015 deal with Iran. "With Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on his right side, and National Security Adviser John Bolton on his left side, what do you think is going to happen to that agreement?" Giuliani asked with a grin. 

Giuliani said that regime change in Tehran was "more important than an Israeli-Palestinian deal" and could contribute to reaching such a deal in the future. (...)

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

 VV wrote:

 
Hey, don't hog all of the bloodlust! 
@sirdroseph: are you—heck, is anyone—seriously worried about Mike Pence?!?!?  The guy is extra-strength Sominex. He's terrified of his own libido and of disobeying the Bible with his thoughts. 

 miamizsun wrote: 

I thank you very much for that offer. There are some aspects of libertarianism that I find appealing and I have general concerns about a possible lack of checks and balances on federal power, mostly dealing with the growth of federal programs. So perhaps you and I could have a discussion about libertarianism some time...

However I have to ask, miamizsun: did you read all of that piece by Silverglate that you linked to? He ends up practically foaming at the mouth:

More specifically, the raid demonstrates that the permanent law enforcement bureaucracy, which invariably pursues its own agenda that defies true change and reform, will stop at nothing to remove Trump from office and convict-and-imprison all those who on principle or out of loyalty refuse to cooperate (or, in the immortal words of Alan Dershowitz, refuse “not only to sing, but also to compose”). The bureaucracy functions on its own regardless of who happens to be temporarily in the position of FBI Director or Attorney General or even President. Administrations come, and they go, but the bureaucracy, and particularly the FBI, are there forever, and they target whom they wish. It is a power game, having little to do with politics or political party or ideology; rather, it is an assertion of who is in charge. Trump sealed his fate when he played musical chairs with cabinet members and bureau-heads, while ignoring the entrenched bureaucracy that poses an existential threat to his presidency, as well as to any presidency that the permanent bureaucracy finds it cannot control.  

...
Special Counsel Mueller, foolishly, even recklessly appointed to his powerful investigative and prosecutorial position with the single aim of disrupting if not eliminating the duly-elected Trump administration...

I'm sorry. Silverglate and Dershowitz may have a point about federal criminal law needing reform, but when I read the above-quoted crap I'm reminded of Joe McCarthy's claims of Reds in the State Department trying to betray the government from within.  

A true hero, and not a peep from Donnie Johnnie. Skin color, perhaps?

Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal
Israeli agency told to find incriminating material on Obama diplomats who negotiated deal with Tehran

 BillG wrote: 

 BillG wrote: 
All these head games are giving me double vision...on second thought it could be the tourniquet...

 miamizsun wrote: 
Then you check it and see, of course :-)