President Donald Trump: The Thread

[StrangeSox]

Trump judicial nominee struggles to answer basic legal questions at hearing

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/jud...flub/index.html

 

From the DeVos files...

 

Knowing the basic rules of evidence is probably pretty important for a trial judge.

[maggsmaggs]

Knowing the basic rules of evidence is probably pretty important for a trial judge.

How does a lawyer not know what a motion in limine is? Even most corporate lawyers should have a basic understanding of that. Not to mention that federal district court judges oversee these motions routinely and in most cases.

Edited December 15, 2017 by maggsmaggs

[RockRaines]

How does a lawyer not know what a motion in limine is? Even most corporate lawyers should have a basic understanding of that. Not to mention that federal district court judges oversee these motions routinely and in most cases.

Lifetime. Appointment.

[Jenksismyhero]

As a trial attorney, that was all pretty pathetic and it's sad i'm far more qualified than him to be a judge and i'm 35...

 

However, people are pointing to the wrong things here. Not ever trying a case, never deposing anyone (!), not knowing what a motion in limine is and never arguing a motion before a judge (!!!!!) are the damning parts of his lack of experience. Saying he hasn't read the Federal Rules of Civ Pro or Evidence is not really a big deal. I haven't read either in years and I suspect the vast majority of attorneys/judges out there haven't either. It's a rule book. That's like asking how many professional athletes have read their respective rule books. The answer is virtually none, but you reference it when needed and your experience has provided you with opportunities to read/interpret/use the rules at one point or another. Just because I haven't read it from page one all the way through doesn't mean I don't know or understand the rules more concretely (or that I can't learn through judicial training).

 

I've seen my share of us dist court judges that don't know everything about the law as well as they should, but I also know several absolutely brilliant judges who can spout legal opinions and doctrines like it's nothing (much like Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings). But a lot of that comes from experience from being a judge, not from being an attorney.

Edited December 15, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[bmags]

OTOH if I was nominated for a federal judgeship I would have been refreshing pretty hard especially before nominations.

[illinilaw08]

As a trial attorney, that was all pretty pathetic and it's sad i'm far more qualified than him to be a judge and i'm 35...

 

However, people are pointing to the wrong things here. Not ever trying a case, never deposing anyone (!), not knowing what a motion in limine is and never arguing a motion before a judge (!!!!!) are the damning parts of his lack of experience. Saying he hasn't read the Federal Rules of Civ Pro or Evidence is not really a big deal. I haven't read either in years and I suspect the vast majority of attorneys/judges out there haven't either. It's a rule book. That's like asking how many professional athletes have read their respective rule books. The answer is virtually none, but you reference it when needed and your experience has provided you with opportunities to read/interpret/use the rules at one point or another. Just because I haven't read it from page one all the way through doesn't mean I don't know or understand the rules more concretely (or that I can't learn through judicial training).

 

I've seen my share of us dist court judges that don't know everything about the law as well as they should, but I also know several absolutely brilliant judges who can spout legal opinions and doctrines like it's nothing (much like Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings). But a lot of that comes from experience from being a judge, not from being an attorney.

 

I agree with most of this. I will say, however, that I refer to the Rules of Civ. Pro. every time I'm looking at a discreet issue to refresh my recollection. And I look at the Rules of Evidence every time I'm prepping for trial. I took the "read" part of this to be just that. How many times have you looked at that rule book?

 

The most important thing here is that you are patently unqualified to be a judge without having tried cases and argued motions in front of the Court. New judges have a steep enough learning curve as it is, and it's absolutely absurd that this dude was ever tapped for a lifetime appointment...

[Jenksismyhero]

OTOH if I was nominated for a federal judgeship I would have been refreshing pretty hard especially before nominations.

 

This is very true.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, it's definitely a problem of not knowing seemingly very basic things that would be crucial to the job rather than the last time he read through the whole federal code.

 

That said, while it's been years since I've reviewed the actual CFR's related to my job, I keep up on relevant regulatory guidance and industry guidance when it's published. He could have had an easy answer there along those lines if he had any relevant qualifications.

 

At least the "KKK was right" blogger nominee who was somehow even less qualified than this guy for a lifetime federal appointment had been rejected.

[RockRaines]

As a trial attorney, that was all pretty pathetic and it's sad i'm far more qualified than him to be a judge and i'm 35...

 

However, people are pointing to the wrong things here. Not ever trying a case, never deposing anyone (!), not knowing what a motion in limine is and never arguing a motion before a judge (!!!!!) are the damning parts of his lack of experience. Saying he hasn't read the Federal Rules of Civ Pro or Evidence is not really a big deal. I haven't read either in years and I suspect the vast majority of attorneys/judges out there haven't either. It's a rule book. That's like asking how many professional athletes have read their respective rule books. The answer is virtually none, but you reference it when needed and your experience has provided you with opportunities to read/interpret/use the rules at one point or another. Just because I haven't read it from page one all the way through doesn't mean I don't know or understand the rules more concretely (or that I can't learn through judicial training).

 

I've seen my share of us dist court judges that don't know everything about the law as well as they should, but I also know several absolutely brilliant judges who can spout legal opinions and doctrines like it's nothing (much like Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings). But a lot of that comes from experience from being a judge, not from being an attorney.

Dude, if you were going to interview for a job that has a lifetime appointment, wouldnt you have brushed up on those things?

[Balta1701]

So there are an awful lot of hints that the GOP is about to end the investigations into Trump. The President talked about a pardon "not yet" today for Flynn, Congressperson Adam Schiff is noting that they have stopped scheduling any additional hearings into the Russian job in the House and they couldn't have done that without Paul Ryan's support, and a correspondent for Bloomberg at the House thinks that they're about to remove an FBI deputy Director over the Steele Dossier.

[StrangeSox]

The House investigation has been a farce since day 1, the Senate one a little less so.

 

Muller's investigation is the only one that really matters. I don't have any faith that Republicans would do anything in response to another Saturday night massacre, though.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/opinions/tru...nion/index.html

Trump’s judge pick had a very bad day (at the hands of a Republican)

[caulfield12]

https://thinkprogress.org/corker-kickback-s...889f4e/?ref=yfp

“Corker Kickback” sends Republicans scrambling ahead of tax bill vote

 

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/743952/sen-b...ll-now-supports

 

On Saturday, Corker insisted he had not known about the "Corker kickback" before he switched his vote. On Sunday, he asked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) for an explanation. "The suggestion was that it was airdropped into the conference without prior consideration by either the House or the Senate," Corker said. "Because this issue has raised concerns, I would ask that you provide an explanation of the evolution of this provision and how it made it into conference report. I think that because of many sensitivities, clarity on this issue is very important."

Edited December 18, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

https://thinkprogress.org/corker-kickback-s...889f4e/?ref=yfp

“Corker Kickback” sends Republicans scrambling ahead of tax bill vote

 

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/743952/sen-b...ll-now-supports

 

On Saturday, Corker insisted he had not known about the "Corker kickback" before he switched his vote. On Sunday, he asked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) for an explanation. "The suggestion was that it was airdropped into the conference without prior consideration by either the House or the Senate," Corker said. "Because this issue has raised concerns, I would ask that you provide an explanation of the evolution of this provision and how it made it into conference report. I think that because of many sensitivities, clarity on this issue is very important."

The new tax bill won't benefit Trump at all. Believe me. He is getting calls from the rich complaining how much it will cost them. Believe me.but he won't listen to them. He is doing the right thing and making sure this benefits the middle class and lower income people. Believe me.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dick Allen

[RockRaines]

The new tax bill won't benefit Trump at all. Believe me. He is getting calls from the rich complaining how much it will cost them. Believe me.but he won't listen to them. He is doing the right thing and making sure this benefits the middle class and lower income people. Believe me.

Dont believe the failing New York Times!!

[StrangeSox]

Trump is angry at Sessions and Wray for not purging the DOJ and FBI of anyone who isn't a Trump loyalist fast enough.

 

Over the summer, Mr. Trump publicly dangled the possibility of firing Mr. Mueller, stoking concerns among some of his advisers who believed that Mr. Trump would further imperil his presidency if he did so.

 

But two people who have spoken to the president recently said that he was far more frustrated with the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, than Mr. Mueller. Mr. Trump has said that Mr. Wray has not moved quickly enough to rid the bureau of senior officials who were biased against Mr. Trump and had worked for James B. Comey, the director whom Mr. Trump fired in May.

 

Mr. Trump’s lawyers assured the president throughout the fall that Mr. Mueller’s investigation would be over by the end of the year. But on Dec. 1, Mr. Flynn entered his guilty plea and agreed to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation, an indication that the inquiry will not soon close.

[Iwritecode]

President Donald Trump’s judicial nominee Matthew Petersen has withdrawn his name from consideration after a video went viral of him failing to answer basic questions about law in his confirmation hearing

[Dick Allen]

According to the Tax Policy Cwnter, the top 1 % will receive 83% of the new tax cut bill benefits.

[Kyyle23]

President Donald Trump’s judicial nominee Matthew Petersen has withdrawn his name from consideration after a video went viral of him failing to answer basic questions about law in his confirmation hearing

 

He had an absolute nightmare of a confirmation hearing, and probably would have been confirmed anyways. Kudos to him for stepping out and realizing that he was in over his head

[Big Hurtin]

According to the Tax Policy Cwnter, the top 1 % will receive 83% of the new tax cut bill benefits.

Those people who are complaining to Trump? The ones he won’t listen to?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Trump, Diplomatic Genius:

 

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/943877719292563456

BREAKING: Canada considered voting against the UNGA resolution on Trump's Jerusalem announcement but changed vote to abstention after hearing Trump's threats in order not to be perceived as US puppet, Western diplomats tell me

[StrangeSox]

Trump, Diplomatic Genius:

 

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/943877719292563456

 

Final vote:

 

 

Essentially every one of our closest allies voted in favor of this. Hardly anyone voted against.

[StrangeSox]

As Trump’s chances of winning the GOP nomination grew, the the Wall Street Journal buried an editorial highlighting his underworld connections

 

nym.ag/2Bo8kVU

 

 

In a short period of time, five staffers have departed The Wall Street Journal editorial page. The general cause of their departures, willing and otherwise, is known: the Journal editorial line has increasingly conformed with the pro-Trump dictates of the rest of the Murdoch media empire. (Most recently, Journal editorials, which once presented Ken Starr as the last hope to preserve the rule of law, have fomented various right-wing conspiracy theories about Robert Mueller and called for his firing.)

 

Sam Tanenhaus, deep into his excellent story on the dwindling band of anti-Trump conservative intellectuals, reports more specifically on the circumstances surrounding their departure. As Trump’s chances of winning the nomination grew, the paper buried an editorial highlighting his underworld connections:

Those were heavy losses in pages whose content is managed by fewer than thirty people in total. And the reason, according to several defectors, was the Journal’s skidding reversal once Rupert Murdoch realized Trump could win. Several sources pointed to the editorials by one writer, James Freeman. “All-in for Ted Cruz” during the primaries, Freeman wrote a strong attack on Trump’s Mob dealings, and had a second ready to go. But as Trump got closer to clinching the nomination, Paul Gigot kept delaying publication, saying “it needed work.” Once Trump became the likely Republican nominee, Freeman executed a neat volte-face. “The facts suggest that Mrs. Clinton is more likely to abuse liberties than Mr. Trump,” he wrote. “America managed to survive Mr. Clinton’s two terms, so it can stand the far less vulgar Mr. Trump.”

[GoSox05]

Nikki Haley made a threat that the U.S "will remember" the countries that voted for this.

 

Actually pretty easy to do. It's pretty much all of them.

[Dick Allen]

I am really surprised Trump's foray into Gary, Indiana about 20 years ago, isn't getting much of a second look. Read all of the stories about it. Everyone was going to get rich, Jobs, jobs, jobs, make Gary great again. It's almost exactly the same shtick he's used as POTUS. It didn't quite work out. Everyone in Gary got screwed, except Trump. Instead of a new town, the traveling circus found an entire country.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Dick Allen