Won't be fooled again--yeah, right

Donald Trump is not going to clear the swamp, he is going to redirect the flow of brackish water into his own swamp. Relocating the swamp.

As sure as Hillary and Bill's fortune dwindles, the Trumpster will enrich himself to much greater levels. Blind trust? If anyone thinks that having his three oldest children running a Trump trust will be independent of Daddy's best interests and that Darnold will be unmotivated to give his kiddies helpful advice, then I have the proverbial bridge to sell you.

Is there any question that Drumpf will not enrich himself to an even greater extent than the Clintons? Rather than get donations for fake philanthropy, Trump will be pleasantly "surprised" by the number of official and unofficial bigwigs electing to stay at a Trump Tower when they travel, whether it be Washington DC, NYC, Argentina, etc. It will all be perfectly legal because of the "blind trust" masquerading as independent from his personal direction. And with this well-corrupted well-crafted scheme, he won't even have to bother with charities that might actually do some good.

Oh, so sweet! Yeah, he'll make Trump great again and fuck you peons who have to pay for his privatized infrastructure, privatized pseudo-public education. Part of the "infrastructure" will doubtless be oil and gas pipelines receiving government subsidies to continue their beneficial role in adding to hoaxes, like climate change.

Justice? Can we afford it? Tell me how much money you have and I'll tell you. There will be an epidemic of litigation loosed upon the land--but it won't be company versus company; it will be corporation versus peasant. So no we won't have three-lawyer "trade tribunals" negating our sovereignty, we will have regular courts of law sucking away our recourse to injustice. Juries will be instructed to follow the "law" when rendering a verdict, which strangely enough will always favor corporations.

Thus career advisors will advise their undergraduates to go into law, forsaking science, humanities, engineering because the legal pickings will be so rich as to assure a fine income--as long as people can pay for it.

No, Trump won't prosecute Billary because he will do the same and hence not wish to set a precedent. He may choose to fry some of the littler fish--or make pizza out of them.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

I will give him this much credit...he knows the art of the deal, and how to position himself to best it.
What will Obama's foundation look like?
hmmm...
I will quibble with you just a bit on lawyers, since this month is my 31st anniversary since getting my license.
Rich people wanted their kids to be doctors. If their kids weren't smart enough, they became dentists. Nowadays, lawyers are the new dentists.(Apologies to dentists. This is smack talk.) Newbie lawyers are a dime a dozen. In Texas, there are record numbers of new lawyers annually. Their office is their lap top.
Courts are created specifically to listen to pro se litigants. The associate judges are often lawyers who are pals with a judge, get a gig for Friday mornings to rubber stamp a pro se docket. I hear the pay is really good.
The Texas Supreme Court furnishes forms for divorce, probate, adoption, adult name change, and so forth, for free. And advises people how to get to court, with forms, to show they can't pay any filing fees.
Big time corporate lawyers are untouched.
Small town, rural lawyers, such as me, are competing with institutionalized, mandatory free legal stuff.
This was all sold by Republicans to help the poors avoid dreaded lawyers!
I watch people do their own divorce, divide up property worth $500,000 or more. Poors?
When no title company will approve the sale of their lake homes because the divorce decrees aren't sufficient, they can come see me.
When their 401k's and retirement funds aren't divided, I am, of course, available.
Leave it a smart Republican government to screw the poors every time.
I prefer to do things correctly first go around.
It is much harder and more expensive to undo legal goofs than it is to resolve the legal issues in the first place, sans goofs.
Ok. Rant about lawyers is almost over.
I will stick up for Hillary this once. That rapist she represented, the shaming/blaming of the victim that ensued.
It is possible that her defense in that state at that time was legally allowed. It is also possible that at that time and in that state that not using that approach was malpractice and automatic reversal on appeal.
I almost got jailed for asking questions to a teen who had accused more than one man of raping her.
And that is the end of my rant.
Given I have represented rapists and murderers and drug dealers, and judges, and sheriffs, and county commissioners, and on, and on...
End of rant.
Peace.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Bisbonian's picture

It is possible that her defense in that state at that time was legally allowed. It is also possible that at that time and in that state that not using that approach was malpractice and automatic reversal on appeal.

Who made that so?

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

The body of case law in that state.
It might have been a defense for her to prove consent, or might have been a way to get her guy sentenced to county jail, I just do not know. Texas sets a specific age of consent compared to the defendant. 3 years, victim under the age of 17. It allows a presumption of innocence when a 15 and just shy of 18 year old perp gets filed on.
But I do know this. All I asked was if the young lady had boy friends.
She had testified about how horrible the second or third sexual assault had ruined her life, made her afraid of all men.
The judge went nuts.
I read it into the record that I, as a woman, meant boys as friends, and anything suggesting sex came from the judge's head. He would duck out of sight when he saw me walking down the hall. For years. He died. Very few lawyers went to his funeral.
I meant this line of questioning to shorten the sentence, in the event of a guilty verdict.
Sexual assault cases are very difficult.
I had to put a divorce case on hold for year while another attorney in another county got a not guilty verdict so my client could take the stand in in his divorce case.
All I meant to say is that of all the horrid things Hillary had done in her life, the one thing she might have done well within the law, is advocate for an accused rapist that was found not guilty.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Bisbonian's picture

not what.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

I will stick up for Hillary this once. That rapist she represented, the shaming/blaming of the victim that ensued.
It is possible that her defense in that state at that time was legally allowed. It is also possible that at that time and in that state that not using that approach was malpractice and automatic reversal on appeal.

First, she didn't have to take the case at all. The excuse has been that the judge MIGHT have been angry with her if she said that her conscience would not allow her to take the case. I have two reactions to that: (1) speculation; and (2) so what?

Your proferred excuses are also sheer speculation and, I posit, unlikely to be true. This story has been out there so long, and it's a damaging story, yet neither Hillary nor any of her surrogates have put forth any of these excuses. Had there been such excuses--or any excuses-- surely, we would have heard them by now, just as we heard how she couldn't refuse the case because that MAY have angered the judge excuse.

Finally, nothing excuses Hillary's laughter when Hillary told the story of what she did to that child to win that case on behalf of the 40 year old rapist. It's on youtube, if you want to see it for yourself.

up
0 users have voted.

bragging.
The Rule No Decent Attorney Ever Violates is to never, ever brag.
She also bragged when Ghadhafi (sp.?) was brutally murdered. She is depraved.
My knee jerk about that particular case is that the hardest job a lawyer does it to represent criminal defendants by court appointments. Every state, every judge allows different lines of questioning. I am convinced that state, in that year, permitted that type of defense to be mounted, and that if she had not taken the option, her own client could have filed a grievance on her.
I defend the attorneys doing that job.
They are the last and best hope for poor people who cannot afford to hire an attorney.
So, for that one occasion, she was a member of a class of lawyers for whom I have the greatest respect.
A few years ago, a little girl was being prostituted by her mom. She was 8 years old. 25 guys were tried for not only raping her, but filming it. One of the court appointed lawyers actually tried to mount a consent defense. The judge let him go there. That attorney later got a cush job in the district attorney's office in that county, where he regularly prosecutes case in front of that same judge.
It is just a fucked up system.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

of your first post, rather than addressing my reply to your first post. So I can only either repeat my first reply or refer you back to it. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/217771#comment-217771 The only other thing I will say is that you shifted my comment in my post from laughing about what she did to that child on behalf of the child's forty-year old rapist to bragging. To me, that is not a distinction without a difference.

up
0 users have voted.

Isn't the point of a statutory rape law to protect the young and vulnerable from being intimidated/conned/persuaded - taken advantage of - by much older people looking for sex with children - what most of us term 'child abuse'? So how is any claim of 'consent' an issue with any 12-year-old or 8-year-old child allowable in any reasonable court? Because previously allowed by unreasonable ones, thereby creating precedent?

Law, in any claimed democracy, exists to protect the public interest and individuals within it from abuse/predation/reckless exposure to hazard of any kind, not forming the game of power over the more vulnerable it's been warped into. The fact that this has so widely and routinely occurred without official attempts to ensure that justice at least remains an ideal is both telling and terrifying...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

brag about it?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Bragging attorneys are despised in the profession.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Big Al's picture

smaller "third world" countries when they "elect" someone and five years later the president and his family are brought up on charges of robbing the country blind and enriching themselves beyond their wildest dreams. Remember Imelda Marcos and her shoes. Believe it or not, the next one could be worse.

But as a country we won't change this system and we will collectively get fooled again, bet on it. The next election starts in a little over two years. And we will allow it to happen.

up
0 users have voted.

I am pissed as any labor union worker should be pissed, seeing our livelihoods going south.
Just because we do a valuable service to the public, and expect compensation accordingly...
I am finding I can't ex pat unless my Social Security will be adequate.
I have a horror of being in Guatemala, absolutely broke, being deported back to here.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

I always said back in 2012 that Romney may be POTUS one day, but it won't be Mitt.
I was wrong b/c now I realize that it is more likely that another Trump will be POTUS. Trump has more cash than Mitt, a lot more, and after, and while, Trump is POTUS, he will amass even more billions a la the Clinton Crime Family.
Trump has several sons, and a couple daughters, and the rightwingers would absolutely eat up a Trump dynasty. Imagine that for a moment. If Trump does not fuck up the economy and do something really dumb like privatize SS and/or Medicare, we could see rightwingers and enough in the middle voting Trump for as far as the eye can see. And that, folks, is damn fucking scary.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

betrothed yet? Maybe they will have matching crowns at the ceremony to prepare them for the pomp and circumstance of ruling the United Kingdom of Clintrumpton.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Clinton dynasty. We're already hearing talk of a Chelsea run for political office; she's been learning the ropes of corruption from the family foundation. (And George P. Bush, Jeb's son, is already in the pipeline.)

Hell no. Down with dynasty!

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

sort of generation skipping regulations or something to prevent families from taking over political offices.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

TheOtherMaven's picture

appointed his brother Robert as Attorney General. Apparently the law needs to be revisited and extended.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

I would like to see something that limits families from holding more than one office at a time, both locally and nationally.

They become as entrenched as lobbyists.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

employment. See statute below.)

Limiting who Americans can elect, as opposed to limiting whom a politician may appoint, is a much heavier responsibility.

That said, the person who acted as a go between for Joe Kennedy on twisting JFK's arm to appoint Bobby AG spoke about it on some program or other I saw about the Kennedys or about JFK. (I've forgotten the name of the go between, though I recognized it when I watch the program. Sorry!) JFK did not want to do it and the go between told Joe Kennedy that JFK was right, but Joe would not be deterred. He'd hear out the go between making all his argument. When the go between stopped talking, Joe would simple say something like, "Yes, all that's fine. Now tell Jack to appoint Bobby."

Looking at RFK's record as AG with civil rights, with organized crime and with helping his brother ease out of a tense situation with Russia over the Cuban missiles...I can say only, "Thank heaven for Joe's insistence." And the energy and intelligence and hard work RFK brought to the job more than earned his keep. If it had been otherwise I think Jack would have persuaded him to resign after a year or two.

What an extraordinary clan!

ETA: I found the statute. It's broader than just appointments, so I changed the subject line of this post.

5 U.S. Code § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) “agency” means—

(A) an Executive agency;
(B) an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;
(C) an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and
(D) the government of the District of Columbia;

(2) “public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress), a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency; and

(3) “relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

(c) An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.

(d) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment, in the event of emergencies resulting from natural disasters or similar unforeseen events or circumstances, of individuals whose employment would otherwise be prohibited by this section.

(e) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the appointment of an individual who is a preference eligible in any case in which the passing over of that individual on a certificate of eligibles furnished under section 3317(a) of this title will result in the selection for appointment of an individual who is not a preference eligible.
(Added Pub. L. 90–206, title II, § 221(a), Dec. 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 640; amended Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224.)

I love this website--and it is currently soliciting donations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

"Yeah, he'll make Trump great again..."

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

sojourns's picture

is that he is going to get busted receiving emoluments or charged with bribery. This notion of his that having his children run the business is somehow the equivalent of a blind trust is laughable. As we know, he's already used if not abused his position as president elect to wine and dine foreign dignitaries. Then there is the fact of his major outstanding debts with the Bank of China which is state owned as well as his debt to Deutsch Bank. There are not enough layers of separation in that masquerade. In fact, there are no layers of separation as they are employed by him. In order for him to be in compliance he'll have to sell all of his business and put them into a Standard and Poor's 500 or similar, recommended index fund.

He won't be able to help himself. Seems to me he's in a vulnerable place, both ins terms of his emotional state, the gravity of the looming responsibility upon him (he's already blown off attending one morning security briefing if not more) along with his lifelong business activities, which he will never give up.

Being that there is little precedent for this; none on this scale. He will take the road of having his kids run the business and he will not be able to resist the temptation to use the power of presidency to become a real life billionaire. Aside from that, who knows what other impeachable dirt is going to surface? I'm mean besides the possible money laundering schemes with the Russians or the resurfacing of rape charges.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

He's obviously a crook and a con man. Always has been.
He'll be a one-term president.

up
0 users have voted.

was that corrupt Louisiana governor who was re-elected over and over.

And HRC won over half of the votes.....HRC is not exactly clean.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah