This is the second change in as many weeks…
The new guy, Emmett Flood, has experience in impeachment legality….
He will still have to deal with a client that often does not listen to advice…
The media is floating the idea that Trump might agree to a 3 hour sit down Q & A….
I’m sticking to the view that Trump WILL come to the table with Mueller & Co. …Not wanting to have a protracted legal fight on a Mueller subpoena ……
President Trump has hired Emmet T. Flood, the veteran Washington lawyer who represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment, to replace Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer who has taken the lead in dealing with the special counsel investigation and has decided to retire, according to two people briefed on the matter.
In a phone interview, Mr. Cobb, who is 67, said he informed the president weeks ago that he wanted to retire. He said he planned to stay at the White House, likely through the end of the month, to help Mr. Flood transition into the new job.
“It has been an honor to serve the country in this capacity at the White House,” he said. “I wish everybody well moving forward.”
Mr. Flood is expected to take a more adversarial approach to the investigation than Mr. Cobb, who had pushed Mr. Trump to strike a cooperative tone. Mr. Flood initially spoke with the White House last summer about working for the president, but the talks ultimately fell apart because Mr. Flood did not want to deal with Mr. Trump’s longtime New York lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, who was overseeing the president’s dealings with the special counsel at the time.
Mr. Flood’s hiring has not been made final, the people cautioned, noting Mr. Trump’s practice of reneging on personnel decisions after they are reported in the press.
It was not clear what prompted Mr. Flood to sign on. The president’s legal team for the special counsel investigation has been marked by turnover and uncertain strategy, complicated by a client liable to dismiss his lawyers’ advice. That factor prompted Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer on the case, John Dowd, to quit this year. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who is a longtime confidant of the president, has come on board pledging to negotiate an interview for the president with the special counsel…..
Note….
After the Michael Cohen raid and the threat of a subpoena with NOT Trump lawyer in the room?
Things got serious with the Trump legal effort…..
The lawyers that are leaving are the ones that have cautioned him not to attack Mueller.
Seemingly, they are going to be more aggressive in calling all of this a “witch hunt.” Politically, they have no other choice.
It remains to be seen on what their client will do
Trump is known to go his own way on things
Which is how he gets in trouble in the first place…..
Mueller still hold the cards in getting Trump to come in and do the Q&A
And once in the room?
Mueller can go for as long as the Grand Jury wants
Not just 3 hours
I don’t think he’ll ever agree to go before a Grand Jury.
If these are former Clinton lawyers, they learned a lesson about a person who thinks they can lie under oath without consequence.
The “cards” are largely irrelevant, at least as it relates to Trump personally. It’s going to have to be up to the voters, and frankly, a lot of voters just don’t give a damn about any of this.
There are signs today that the American hostages held by North Korea might have been released.
(Let’s hope. That would obviously be a great thing.)
If that happens though, expect Trump to take full credit, cry about the unnecessary “witch hunt against him” and see his poll numbers go up a bit.
and knowing how Trump operates, they will be moved to Singapore or whatever country the “summit” will take place in, and then that is where the news will break with him standing alongside them and flying them home on Air Force One.
For the sake of their families, I hope it happens, even before that.
Good for him….
I do NOT expect N Korea to permentlyngive up its nukes….
I DO expect Kim Jung Un to hold out for less US troops in country
Something Mattis is NOT. Gonna be happy about….
In fact Emmett Flood WAS a Clinton defense lawyer CG….
He knows even better that Trump will NOT beat the call of a subpoena for Trump
That is the reason Rudy is trying the 3 hour appearance thing….
Trump i’m Sure does NOT want to prolong this whole thing and lose a ruling
The lawyers have a client who WANTS to do this and get the inquiry over….
Even if the Grand Jury was to hand up charges?
Trump has Pence to pardon him out
Me?
I just the guy to quit…..
I agree that Trump voters in particular don’t care at all about any of this.
More than that though.
It’s likely really only the people like us who post on political blogs saying how much we dislike Trump or who take part in marches, etc, who care about Russia.
That’s not to say that many, if not most Americans, do not have suspicions about possible Russian collusion or just why he fired Comey, but they just don’t care, especially if they are enjoying the economy or feel like America is now stronger abroad.
Not True CG
I have had conversations with a wide spectrum of friends, family and complete. Strangers about Trump…..
It’s just me
But most think the guy is lost, mean spirited and geomatic….
They have come to understand that Trump is mostly mouth
But they are to a tea concerned that the country has a President with issues
Even the people who say they voted for him?
They say he should shut the fuck up…
Yeah, I know plenty of people who can’t stand him either and people who voted for him, knowing full well he would be an embarrassment at times, but there are lots of other people out there too who simply do not care about anything related to “investigations” or if he is “ethical” or not.
They just want the feeling of prosperity and security.
It’s very much like the 1990s.
Let me put it this way, I don’t happen to personally know a lot of people who voted for him. At least not many that I am aware voted for him.
Maybe others do, but among those who voted for him, are those people saying they wish they didn’t? If they had to do it all over again, they would vote for Hillary? I do not get the sense that there is a lot of angst about the people who did vote for him or that they feel (thus far) that they are being horribly let down.
Instead, I see some evidence among Republican leaning people like me who did not vote for him, that resistance is withering away and they are open to voting for him next time (Definitely not me though, don’t get me wrong. I am the Neverest of Never Trumps and would not vote for him to be the Dog Catcher of the smallest town in America, even if Michael Cohen paid me $130,000.)
Nonetheless, what I am saying is that the country is divided, but the substantial number of people who did vote for him are by and large not knocking themselves for doing it. It seemed like in 2010, a lot more Obama voters felt like they had made a mistake, which is part of the reason why his margin went down in 2012.
For those of us who do actually care, Rudy Giuliani just screwed over Trump in a tv interview by admitting he paid back Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money.
What a lawyer!
I would assume that Rudy KNOWS that Trump did this or HAD to do this to cover Cohen’s ass….
Remember….
Cohen knows the secrets …..
There are gonna be more of this as the Giuliani and Flood influence comes to bear on the case….
Now that, CG, would be the ultimate Battle for the Soul of Mr. Lincoln’s Party:
If you were to oppose DJT (as you would feel honour-bound to do) in the GOP primary for Dog-Catcher of Cook or DuPage County.
And the post of animal-catcher is not necessarily without importance: it’s one of the many odd jobs that John Tyler held between completing his term as the first unelected President of the United States and being elected to (though not serving in) the Congress of the Confederate States.
Nonsense. Yes, The vast majority of people who voted for Trump last time would do so again, but the vast majority of people who voted for Obama in 2008 did so again in 2012 too. And if Trump runs again in 2020, I doubt he will do anywhere near as well as Obama in 2012. With or without rounding.
Never did I say that a majority of Obama voters did not vote to reelect him. Not even close. What are you reading?
However, a number of voters did switch to vote against Obama in 2012 after they voted for him in 2008, which is very unusual for a Presidential incumbent in recent times. (Even more Obama voters “switched” and went for Trump in the open election.)
At this point, we have no idea what would happen in 2020.
It is not very unusual. Clinton, GHWB and Carter also did worse the second time they ran. And Trump most likely will too. – although of course we don’t know for sure.
Clinton did do better in 1996.
We are talking about Presidents that were reelected obviously, which Obama was. You realized that but as you like to do, changed the terms of the discussion. It is very unusual for an incumbent to do worse than in their initial election.
Obama went from 53 in 2008 to 51 in 2012. The equivalent would be if Trump dropped two points in a traditional two person race (which I hope is not the state of the race if he runs), so if Trump were to not get 44% or below in that circumstance, he would not have the same comparison to Obama,
So bringing up GHWB and Carter is not relevant in contradicting your comment that “It is very unusual for an incumbent to do worse than in their initial election.”?
You might think you are clever and others here can’t see through your stupidity, but everyone else here knows otherwise.
Correct, they are not relevant, as they were defeated, which Trump may or may not be in 2020, but the discussion was on the unusual occurrence of a President being reelected with less support than they had in their initial election and how that goes along with my theory that Trump is not really losing any ground among people who voted for him.
Yes, those who did not vote for him tend to hate him, and are motivated, which is why the midterms might be a problem for Republicans and why he is far from a lock to win reelection, whereas Obama actually had a sizable chunk of people lose the faith they initially had in him, which brought along with it, two midterm shellackings, and a decreased vote in reelection, (albeit still enough to win unfortunately.)
Now, this has nothing to do with me being “clever”, although I very well may be, but more to do with the apparent desire you have Zreebs just to be pesty. It’s up to you.
After all, it kind of goes without saying that Jimmy Carter and GHWB lost the support of many people who voted for them when they won the Presidency. That is why they lost.
All we have right now, is my theory that those who voted with Trump are sticking with him by and large, which may or may not be enough for him to win again.
But it’s like asking that I make the disclosure that water is wet in a discussion of Olympic swimming results.
My feeling is Donald Trump will not under Amy circumstances be President come 2021….
Not “under any circumstances?”
That’s a pretty bold thing to say.
Only G-d knows for sure.
True that….
But in mine mind?
He’s in deep trouble
Yeah, he’s not going to get your vote. He’s not going to get mine either nor the votes of at least 90% of the people who didn’t vote for him last time, but that doesn’t mean he is politically toast, as long as the Democrats are the main opposition party.
(I already know how you all reject my hypothetical Defeat Trump scenario out of hand, and I don’t blame you. It would be nearly foolproof though and if he wins a second term, many will regret not doing it.)
another sign of where the Democrats are headed for 2020.
Hillary is saying she was hurt in the election because she was a “capitalist.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/385942-clinton-being-a-capitalist-probably-hurt-her-2016-election-prospects
Shit Hillary
Republicans are capitalists also
She is saying that her party feels more comfortable with a Democratic Socialist and she probably isn’t wrong.
I wonder if her rendition of “I Am Capitalist, Hear Me Roar” made it into the Goldman Sachs speech transcripts she fought so hard to hide.
The ‘party’ leaders are NOT comfortable with Sanders…
They haven’t been since the last election…
For that matter neither are the party leaders comfortable with Donald Trump, either….
I know that there ARE people out there that would vote for Trump even if Mueller shows conclusively that Trump was elected BY THE RUSSIANS…..
But i’m Betting on the fact that the combined weight of EVERYTHING will force the guy to get up one morning and decide to quit….
Nixon and Clinton both did not have the combined weight of what Trump has on his plate….
The guy simply doesn’t belong as President
A MAJORITY. Of American voters got it right…
A majority of American voters said no to Trump and a majority of American voters said no to Clinton.
Since I said no to both, I should be considered the “super-majority.”
(Sorry for being “clever.”)
In fact your statement is NOT correct CG….
The MAJORITY of voters in 2016 voted FOR Hillary Clinton by a margin of close to 3 Million…
Again?
They got it right….
Only in a Presidential election in THIS country can you get the popular vote win and LOSE the election….
No sir, my statement is correct as correct gets.
Percentage of American voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016= 48 percent.
Percentage of American voters who did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016= 52 percent.
He, he, he…..
Ok CG….
A slight of hand, eh?
In most democracies people do not vote for President. They vote district by district for the legislative body and the leader either comes from those ranks or is selected from there. Under such a system in 2016, Trump would have won easily.
What we have is actually a good deal more democratic than a Parliamentary system.
I EVERY election for office in this country?
The person who get the MOST votes wins…..
In FACT the vote for President is more a Republic than Democracy….
DSD can follow up on this…
But I believe I have THAT right….
Additionally, as I have pointed out before, a Governor of Vermont can also be elected who received a lesser number of votes.
That’s not at all true about elections in our country, putting aside Vermont’s Gubernatorial system.
There are plenty of places where a candidate who “gets the most votes” then has to face a run-off and loses.
You are again splitting hairs…
We BOTH know I’m talking about winning the election for the office….
Nice try….
No cigar….
There are plenty of elections in this country where people vote for one candidate out of a group and several people are elected, regardless of how far behind they were of the person who received the most votes.
The “hairs” that I am “splitting” are the figurative DNA evidence that you once again have a propensity to make statements that just are not true.
We all know that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. The point is that it doesn’t freakin’ matter, never has, and never will. She lost.
The American people had far more of a direct say in how that shook out though than the people in most free countries do when it comes to picking their Head of State/Head of Government.
And how could I have forgotten the obvious corollary-
A Democrat can win their party’s nomination for President, theoretically, even if their opponent received many more votes, due to your Superdelegate system.
She lost after WINNING the popular vote….
He’s President…
He won the game….
That’s a fact….
….and….Wait till Mueller elaborates on HOW Trump won….
That is gonna be interesting…
You keep citing primaries within a party NOT the final election….
How he won?
More people voted for him than her in the places where they both knew the votes mattered more.
There is no evidence that anything happened to alter the vote totals, although either one of the morally bankrupt principles probably would have welcomed that help.
I said you think you are clever. But (other than you), we know otherwise. For example, no one else would make an argument that If you bet that a candidate will win by 10% or more, it really means 9.5% or more. You can argue otherwise, but I challenge you to find someone else on this site that said something so foolish. Maybe you were an above-average student at NIU (I have no idea), but I do know that no one intelligent would make that argument. No one.
There are just too many mountains for the guy to climb….
Legal
Political
Ego
Lies
Nutritionally?
Bringing up Carter and Bush 41 though, does lead to a different observation. Incumbents tend to win reelection.
They are the only elected Presidents, in any of our lifetimes, to be denied the second term they sought (DSD will bring up LBJ dropping out in 1968, but that’s a bit different). In both of those elections (besides facing a nationally prominent primary challenger to varying degrees), there was also the involvement of a major effort by an Independent candidate. This candidate was in at least one of the debates in those cycles.
So, as divisive and polarizing as Trump is, Democrats really need to think again if they are under the impression that they can just throw someone out there who is going to easily beat him in 2020, especially in a traditional one on one race. History suggests that it is fairly unlikely.
Continuing the historical comparison as it relates to how to defeat an elected incumbent President, it would seem like the Democrats would need these three components.
1. a vocal and active primary challenger to Trump that regardless of how many delegates they win, speaks to dissatisfaction within the party with the incumbent
2. a third party candidate, on the ballot in all 50 states, who regardless of the possibility of wining Electoral College votes, is seen as more supported than your typical Libertarian, Green, etc, and who makes it to at least one general election debate against Trump
3. the Democrats nominating an effective communicator with strong political skills who has the capacity to win over voters who have not voted for Democrats in past Presidential elections. (This may be the hardest one)
So, throw in all the comparisons with Carter and Bush and Kennedy and Buchanan and Anderson and Perot, the one factor that seems to be most different is that Trump, sad as it may be, has people who are still highly motivated for him and his brand and who will go out all to support him against any and all opponents. The level of passion that exists for him is something that Jimmy Carter and George Bush 41 were lacking when they sought reelection.
And I meant to that, because of Trump’s “base”, the third party effort, even if by a more traditional Republican type, could split the anti-Trump vote as much as take votes away from Trump.
You guys really need to have open eyes about how polarizing the image and brand of your own party is and why it is going to take a whole lot of things to go right to beat Trump they way Democrats are currently constituted nationally.
So was Guiliano suppossed to be an improvement to Trump’s legal team? What a comedy of errors.
Ten sitting Presidents (out of 40-45, depending on how you count Grover Cleveland, Donald Trump and those who died druing their first term) have both won renomination by a major party and lost the subsequent general election:
1800 John Adams
1828 John Quincy Adams
1840 Martin Van Buren
1888 Grover Cleveland (won popular vote)
1892 Benjamin Harrison
1912 Wm Howard Taft
1932 Herbert Hoover
1976 Gerald Ford
1980 Jimmy Carter
1992 George H. W. Bush
Over twice as many sitting Presidents who won renomination also won re-election:
1792 Washington
1804 Jefferson
1812 Madison
1820 Monroe (essentially unopposed)
1832 Jackson
1864 Lincoln
1872 Grant
1900 McKinley
1904 T. Roosevelt *
1916 Wilson
1924 Coolidge *
1936 FDR
1940 FDR
1944 FDR
1948 Truman *
1956 Ike
1964 LBJ *
1972 Nixon
1984 Reagan
1996 Clinton
2004 Geo. W. Bush
2012 Obama
* first term through succession from the Vice-Presidency rather than election as President.
Some might also add Grover Cleveland, either through winning the popular majority (though losing the Electoral College) in 1888, or by winning a second, non-consecutive term in 1892.