Not merely because of what he has done since he became president. But also because of what he did during the election.

It has amazed me, for months, that millions of Americans agree that Russia hacked the 2016 US election – but those same Americans somehow believe that the hack was ineffective.  I think that is stupid, basically. If Trump won the presidency with less than 80,000 votes spread over three states, it is frankly idiotic to believe that Russian hacking did not affect the outcome. It did. 

Thus, this Esquire piece. Read it. Key excerpt:

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said. The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step — complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.

The Obama people, for reasons known only to themselves, did not take any concrete action.  That would turn out to be a fatal error.

There was a massive, coordinated, highly-sophisticated hack. Everyone agrees with that. 

Soon enough, people will also come to believe that the hack worked. 

Comments (18)

Now available for public viewing and your punk rock edification.

Right here, maaaaan.

 

Comments (1)

This is a huge decision, with historic implications. For usurious trial lawyers, it is an unmitigated disaster: they now face the realistic prospect of class action lawsuits by clients they have manipulated and ripped off.

Meanwhile, anyone seen Ontario’s Attorney General? He’s been as invisible on this file as he has on a neo-Nazi rag attacking minorities right here in the GTA and making death threats.

A possible 6,000 accident victims can now band together to try and get their money back from a law firm alleged to have double dipped from their settlements.

Ontario’s top court ruled Thursday to uphold the class action certification for a case against personal injury law firm Neinstein & Associates LLP that is accused of taking more fees from its former clients than Ontario law allows.

The hotly anticipated ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal could have wide-ranging ramifications for personal injury lawyers in the province because it shines an increasingly glaring spotlight on Ontario’s contingency fee system — “you don’t pay unless we win.”

In simple terms, lawyers working on contingency cannot take a sum of money called “costs” in addition to an agreed-upon percentage fee they take out of a final settlement. The court ruled that the case against Neinstein can move forward as a class action.

The court, drawing on information presented to it during the hearing earlier this year, stated there appears to be “widespread” non-compliance in Ontario with the Solicitor’s Act when it comes to protection of contingency fee clients and the allocation of costs.

Comments (3)

From the Washington Post:

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.
Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.

Comments (17)

Worth re-posting on a day like today. Here.

Comments (6)

Apropos of nothing, choose your aphorism:

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) June 14, 2017

Comments (4)

Now in HuffPo.

Comments (2)

Remember this? I was a kid, but I sure do:

That was October 20, 1973. By November 17, Nixon was declaring that he was “not a crook,” when he was. By July 24, 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon must turn over all of the While House tapes. Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee passed the first of three articles of impeachment. Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

So, 292 days after Nixon fired the special prosecutor – as Trump is now clearly readying to to do with special counsel Mueller – he was gone.

I don’t think Trump will make that 292 day mark. But I really, really hope he fires Mueller. It will be the final admission of guilt, and set off a massive constitutional crisis, and paralyze his ability to do anything.

Do it, Unpresident. We dare you. The historical precedent is not in your favour.

Comments (13)

• Doing the right things – daycare, defence, etc. 
• Not doing the the wrong things – re-opening the Constitution, etc. 
• Staying out of the papers
• Cooling it with the selfie stuff 
• Underselling, overperforming
• Conspicuously opposing Trump’s manifest destiny
• No scandals of significance 
• No big fights with the provinces 
• Significant spending on opposing extremists who falsely claim to be Muslims
• Mostly doing what he said he’d do

Discuss. 

Comments (15)

…he was indicted for the comparatively benign charge of tax evasion.

Something for the Unpresident to contemplate, today, as this major legal development makes itself known.

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges “unprecedented constitutional violations” by Trump. The suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the president “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors” and has undermined the integrity of the U.S. political system.

Comments (4)