trump is serious!!!!!

[BoSoxGal]

I’d love to believe that, BB - but normal rules don’t apply when you have a psychotic Republican Party running Congress.

VOTE 2018!

[BoSoxGal]

By the way, my fat finger missed the little box next to the title of this thread and I ended up at page 1 when I clicked to read new posts; for a psychedelic trip down memory lane, I highly recommend it. So much certainty that Trump couldn’t get elected . . . if only . . .

[Scooter]

None of us (including wes) saw his candidacy as anything but a sick joke at the time. But then that whole no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people thing came into play

[Big RR]

I agree; unless we change the House, we have no chance of impeaching Trump; and even then, I do not think the dems could get the majority needed for removal without an unexpected result in senatorial elections. I'd like to say that something dramatic could change some of the republican votes, but if his separation of kids from their parents at the border/jailing them/having no reunification plans didn't do it, I'm not sure what could (then again, Nixon was reelected by an overwhelming majority, but then forced out of office for the Watergate coverup so who knows). We can only continue to hope.

[rubato]

If he accepts a pardon he admits guilt, no?

If the jury hangs they will immediately re-try him.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

[Scooter]

[Lord Jim]

...something designed to refocus attention back to the giant gorilla climbing up the side of the Empire State Building that your thread is designed to divert attention from...

...to divert attention from that big smelly ape with the planes flying around his head

Apparently I'm not the only one to notice the resemblance:

White House counsel Don McGahn reportedly calls Trump 'King Kong' behind his back

White House counsel Donald McGahn reportedly has a somewhat fraught relationship with President Donald Trump and calls him "King Kong" behind his back.

The New York Times reported that the nickname came from McGahn's frustration with Trump's "volcanic anger" and frequent outbursts, citing several current and former White House officials.

The Times detailed Trump's misunderstanding that McGahn is his personal lawyer who would act as an advocate[big surprise] as the probe developed, when instead, McGahn gave Mueller a detailed account of his knowledge about Trump's efforts to assert more control over the investigation.

More:

https://www.businessinsider.com/don-mcg ... ong-2018-8

[Lord Jim]

J.K. Rowling Mimics Trump's Style With Her Latest Takedown

There’s no doubt that J.K. Rowling is a talented writer, but when she’s not putting new Harry Potter adventures on paper, she is skewering President Donald Trump.

Her latest work came after Trump issued a tweet after reports revealed that White House counsel Don McGahn has been cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation. In his tweet, Trump called the report “Fake News,” adding that “some members of the media… actually called to complain and apologize.”

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Aug 19

Some members of the media are very Angry at the Fake Story in the New York Times. They actually called to complain and apologize - a big step forward. From the day I announced, the Times has been Fake News, and with their disgusting new Board Member, it will only get worse!
19,392 replies 20,684 retweets 78,850 likes

Rowling was less concerned with the content of the tweet than with the language and cadence Trump used in making his argument. To point out what she seems to believe is Trump’s linguistic immaturity, Rowling drafted her own tweet in response, mimicking his spelling and style, resulting in a sort of editorial takedown:

J.K. Rowling
‏Verified account @jk_rowling

I do'nt care what Kids at School call me because they are all Disgusting Fake Losers and my Real Friends go to a diffrent Scool you haven't heard of and they think Im the Coolest and Smartest and we go to parties and I don't have to tell you there Names for this to be True.

This isn’t the first time (and probably won’t be the last) that Rowling has called out Trump on Twitter.

http://time.com/5371492/j-k-rowling-trump-tweet/



Next Trump will probably tweet about how Rowling is a failed author whose books don't sell...

[ex-khobar Andy]

I wish that I weren't worried about the Manafort jury being out so long. I suppose with a known 35% of the population being Trumpaholics, there is every chance that there is one who thinks he is Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. There is of course the slight problem with that in that Fonda was right.

[Lord Jim]

I think it would be a mistake to read too much into the length of the jury deliberations at this point (3 days)...

Afterall there are 18 charges involved and a lot of evidence to consider (including exhibits that were entered into evidence that the judge didn't give the jury a chance to look at during the trial)...

It could well be that they are just trying to do their job conscientiously, and going through the charges and evidence methodically...

Also if there is a hold out (or two) it could well be that they are only holding out on some of the charges, not all of them...

[Scooter]

[RayThom]

I wish that I weren't worried about the Manafort jury being out so long. I suppose with a known 35% of the population being Trumpaholics, there is every chance that there is one who thinks he is Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. There is of course the slight problem with that in that Fonda was right.

I feel you are most likely correct. I'm willing to bet there will be one intractable Manafort stalwart who refuses to budge.

And, of course, that juror will be looking forward to subsequent TV appearances and possibly a book deal.

[Econoline]

[BoSoxGal]

One of my favorite parts of summer is deciding what to read when things slow down just a bit, whether it’s on a vacation with family or just a quiet afternoon. This summer I've been absorbed by new novels, revisited an old classic, and reaffirmed my faith in our ability to move forward together when we seek the truth. Here’s what I’ve been reading:

Tara Westover’s Educated is a remarkable memoir of a young woman raised in a survivalist family in Idaho who strives for education while still showing great understanding and love for the world she leaves behind.

Set after WWII, Warlight by Michael Ondaatje is a meditation on the lingering effects of war on family.

With the recent passing of V.S. Naipaul, I reread A House for Mr Biswas, the Nobel Prize winner's first great novel about growing up in Trinidad and the challenge of post-colonial identity.

An American Marriage by Tayari Jones is a moving portrayal of the effects of a wrongful conviction on a young African-American couple.

Factfulness by Hans Rosling, an outstanding international public health expert, is a hopeful book about the potential for human progress when we work off facts rather than our inherent biases.

From 44’s Facebook page yesterday.

Remember having a President with a brain?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per the NYT this morning:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The jury in the financial fraud trial of Paul Manafort asked the judge on Tuesday for instructions on how to fill out the verdict sheet if they are having trouble reaching consensus on a single one of the 18 counts.

Judge T. S. Ellis III said he would call the jury into the courtroom to reply to its question.

It was not immediately clear if the jury’s question suggested that it had reached a verdict on 17 of the 18 counts of bank and tax fraud brought against Mr. Manafort, a former campaign chairman for President Trump.

The jury’s note to Judge Ellis asked: “If we cannot reach a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the verdict sheet?” It went on to ask what the issue would “mean for the final verdict?”

Doesn't make sense to me. "If we cannot reach a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the verdict sheet?” implies to me that they have reached a consensus (i.e., 12-0 ???) on 17 of the 18 charges and not on one of them. In which case I would assume that the verdict sheet would have 18 lines and they plug in G on NG accordingly. IDK would be acceptable to me for the last one because I am sure that there is enough to either hang him or turn him loose in the 17. But "final verdict" implies some sort of overall score. Bewildered.

[Sue U]

The jury was charged with answering Guilty or Not Guilty on all 18 counts, and they should make every effort to do so. I think they are concerned that if they hang on one count, the entire verdict would be thrown out.

The judge is obviously attempting to get them to complete their task in saying Yea or Nay on every count. However, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow for a partial verdict, so if they are hopelessly deadlocked on that one count, the court could accept the other 17 and the government could seek to re-try the case as to that one count (or not). Specifically:

Rule 31. Jury Verdict

(a) Return. The jury must return its verdict to a judge in open court. The verdict must be unanimous.

(b) Partial Verdicts, Mistrial, and Retrial.

• ***
  
  (2) Multiple Counts. If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed.
  
  (3) Mistrial and Retrial. If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree.

[Lord Jim]

"If we cannot reach a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the verdict sheet?” implies to me that they have reached a consensus (i.e., 12-0 ???) on 17 of the 18 charges and not on one of them.

I think there's an excellent chance that's exactly what is implied, and if so it's very good news...

It would be absolutely shocking if, given the state of the evidence, the jury has actually reached not guilty verdicts on 17 of the counts; the odds are overwhelming that those are guilty verdicts...

I don't imagine the defense team is greeting this news with a whole lot of glee...

[Guinevere]

MSNBC is reporting they have consensus on 17 of 18 counts, and are not in agreement on one count. The judge has sent them back to deliberate further. What Sue reports above is correct and somewhat common. You don't always get to agreement on all counts of a complicated case.

Hopefully, they have agreed to Guilty on the 17, and want to bang on whoever is holding out on the 18th, to try and get Guilty on all 18 counts. At least that's my hope. . .

[RayThom]

Reuters -- one hour ago:

Jury in Manafort case appears closer to verdict, quizzes judge
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trum ... SKCN1L60WU

I get a sense the jury will be rendering a verdict before day's end.