Former President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 07 May 2018, 14:04

Jimbo wrote:I hear that Paul Manafort will soon be off the hook because a federal judge recognized that he was arrested not for his crime but solely to pressure him to dish Trump dirt.


Who told you this? Someone from the Judge’s chambers?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 07 May 2018, 14:06

There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate. We’ll see. But it’s not like he’ll necessarily be off the hook. Regular federal prosecutors could almost certainly take control of the case.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 24007
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 07 May 2018, 15:49

LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.


Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 07 May 2018, 16:07

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.


Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?


That’s the argument they made in response, yeah. I think it’s more likely that Manafort loses the argument, but it’s a fair argument and I wouldn’t be surprised if it gained traction—courts are generally interested in policing the power of these investigations after the Clinton investigations, and the judge in this case appears to be taking it fairly seriously. But to what end? Even if Mueller is barred from pursuing it, the regular US Attorneys could run with it.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 07 May 2018, 17:12

From a Zero Hedge article titled "Mueller Investigation In Jeopardy As 'Witch Hunt' Accusations Play Out In Court" which in addition to covering the crumbling Manafort case also shows how the the Flynn and the 13 Russians hacker cases are falling apart. Specifically about Manfort, maybe the Baron is right, that there are some crimes Manafort himself may be charged with, the article does't say, but with regard to a making a tie between Manafort's doings and Trump's, that's where Davey should start to worry.

Then there's the judge in the Manafort Case, who excoriated a Special Counsel attorney on Friday during a "motion to dismiss" hearing. A leaked transcript of the heated exchange between attorney Michael Dreeben and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis reveals that the entire Manafort case is in jeopardy if the Special Counsel doesn't produce an unredacted copy of the original order from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorizing the original investigation.

Ellis also said that Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute Manafort for charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and called out the DOJ's efforts in the case as an attempt by Mueller to gain leverage over Manafort.

"You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That's what you're really interested in." -Judge Ellis

The Judge also notes that the Special Counsel's indictment against Manafort doesn't mention:

(1) Russian individuals
(2) Russian banks
(3) Russian money
(4) Russian payments to Manafort

To which Dreeben provided an unsatisfactory lawyerly response about how everything is connected to everything (including, apparently, whether Trump paid a woman to keep quiet about consensual sex)


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05- ... -out-court
Question authority.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 07 May 2018, 17:45

Taking most of that as true (even though it contains l lots of nonsense), it certainly doesn’t mean that the Mueller investigation is “falling apart” in any way.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 07 May 2018, 18:14

Jimbo wrote:... there are some crimes Manafort himself may be charged with, the article does't say...

Correction, has been charged with.

"The indictment contains 12 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/heres-w ... -mean.html

My understanding is the judge impugned Mueller's motives in bringing the charges, but that shouldn't necessarily be read as the Court's thinking on whether Manafort actually did the things he's accused of doing.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 07 May 2018, 18:41

Giuliani hasn't even mentioned 9-11 once since joining the Trump legal team.
I feel like I don't even know the guy any more.
:(
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 24007
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 07 May 2018, 18:51

LeBaron wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.


Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?


That’s the argument they made in response, yeah. I think it’s more likely that Manafort loses the argument, but it’s a fair argument and I wouldn’t be surprised if it gained traction—courts are generally interested in policing the power of these investigations after the Clinton investigations, and the judge in this case appears to be taking it fairly seriously. But to what end? Even if Mueller is barred from pursuing it, the regular US Attorneys could run with it.


There is a difference between a fair argument and a persuasive argument. I have to think that the following logic ultimately holds:

- Mueller was within his mandate to explore Manafort’s financial connections (especially foreign ones) because they might have directly led to evidence of foreign agents attempting to influence our election. He can’t know this unless he investigates.

- Any other (related or non-related) crime he uncovers in the process of doing the above is still prosecutable AND something he can reasonably use to induce testimony relevant to his mandate.

I don’t think anything that judge said the other day makes any of the above untrue. To the extent that he “hurt” Mueller’s investigation, it seems to me that the damage was all public relations. At worst, he validated the feelings Trump loyalists when they argue that Mueller is on a fishing expedition.

So sure. It is a “fair” argument in the sense that it is fair to raise the questions he raised. But there wasn’t really any doubt what the answer was. Am I wrong?
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16280
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby bobzilla77 » 07 May 2018, 18:52

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.


Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?



I'm just remembering the last inpeachment, which started with investigations into Whitewater and ended with in investigation into false testimony about oral sex. That would seem to fall "outside the scope" of a failed real estate deal.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 24007
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 07 May 2018, 19:00

bobzilla77 wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.


Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?



I'm just remembering the last inpeachment, which started with investigations into Whitewater and ended with in investigation into false testimony about oral sex. That would seem to fall "outside the scope" of a failed real estate deal.


I think the counter would be...

That’s why they let the office of the Independent Counsel lapse.

Another way Republican’s benefit from their own excesses. They abused the office so badly that it went away, so now nobody has the power to stop them from abusing the Presidency.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 07 May 2018, 19:07

bobzilla77 wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.


Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?



I'm just remembering the last inpeachment, which started with investigations into Whitewater and ended with in investigation into false testimony about oral sex. That would seem to fall "outside the scope" of a failed real estate deal.


Yes. That’s why the courts might be more open to constraining Mueller now. There was much heartburn about how far afield Kenneth Starr went. And I would have to re-read it, but a lot of the Supreme Court’s assumptions in Clinton v. Jones (which addressed a different legal issue, to be fair) turned out to be quite off, as I recall.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 07 May 2018, 19:10

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:There is a difference between a fair argument and a persuasive argument. I have to think that the following logic ultimately holds:

- Mueller was within his mandate to explore Manafort’s financial connections (especially foreign ones) because they might have directly led to evidence of foreign agents attempting to influence our election. He can’t know this unless he investigates.

- Any other (related or non-related) crime he uncovers in the process of doing the above is still prosecutable AND something he can reasonably use to induce testimony relevant to his mandate.

I don’t think anything that judge said the other day makes any of the above untrue. To the extent that he “hurt” Mueller’s investigation, it seems to me that the damage was all public relations. At worst, he validated the feelings Trump loyalists when they argue that Mueller is on a fishing expedition.

So sure. It is a “fair” argument in the sense that it is fair to raise the questions he raised. But there wasn’t really any doubt what the answer was. Am I wrong?


I don’t know. I would have to think about it and read a lot more than I’m able to do right now (or in the next month, really). I’m just saying I’m not willing to reject the argument out of hand and I take it somewhat seriously. Worse case scenario for Mueller? They throw out the indictments and the local US Attorney is free to run with the cases and evidence against Manafort that Mueller has gathered.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 07 May 2018, 21:44

If Manafort has been under investigation for years then who knows until they tell it to the judge?
uggy poopy doody.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 08 May 2018, 15:40

Oh, there's plenty to chew on in this (not so wild) conjecture about Cohen's "other client," that guy Broidy....

Here’s a Theory About That $1.6 Million Payout From a GOP Official to a Playboy Model
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... roidy.html

Broidy is 60 years old, and has been married for over 25 years to a woman of about his own age, with whom he has had three children. His wife is an attorney who was previously a senior vice-president at 20th Century Fox (she has reportedly been involved in some of Broidy’s more questionable business dealings). While of course it’s not impossible that Broidy chose to pursue a dangerous liaison with Miss November 2010, his biography is not that of a man who has the appearance of a likely candidate to have an affair with a Playboy playmate several decades younger than himself. He is not, in other words, a thrice-married serial adulterer with an established record of sleeping with models, playmates, and porn stars.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 08 May 2018, 16:31

New York State Attorney General out on #MeToo charges, was considered the ace in the hole w/r/t Trump's federal pardon powers.

I was dumbfounded when the news hit last night. I would never have seen this plot twist coming in a million years.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 09 May 2018, 00:14

I know Stormy Daniel's lawyer is a major Showboat but still...
http://www.newsweek.com/stormy-daniels- ... ent-916138
a Russian oligarch with links to Vladimir Putin made a payment into the same bank account Michael Cohen used to finance a $130,000 hush money agreement with Daniels in October 2016. The $500,000 was deposited into the First Republic Bank account within 75 days of the payment to Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, Avenatti said Tuesday, and may have been used to cover the costs of preventing Daniels from talking about an alleged affair with President Donald Trump in 2006.

if he can prove this - it ties everything together and puts a bow on it.
if he can't prove it - it can't be good for his client.

it makes a lot of sense. Manafort and Cohen are both up to their elbows in that sort of thing. that Post article about TRUMP suddenly doing all his transactions in cash and Cohen flipping all his houses for WAY over market value -- these things would tie them to the mizzen-mast if they could show who the money came from - wouldn't it?

it seems to me that money laundering and paying hush money are looking more and more like two parts of the same issue.
uggy poopy doody.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 24007
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 09 May 2018, 05:04

If only Robert Parry were still here to debunk!
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
mission
Posts: 2246
Joined: 04 Apr 2008, 13:39

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby mission » 09 May 2018, 05:56

I don't know, chaps. The more I look into this, the more I suspect this Trump fellow probably isn't much good.

Davey's game analogy works for me. The GOP sniffed the polarisation early and actively set about changing the way the game is played. They're fucking with the rules of the game, changing the board on which it is played, while the Democrats are fiddling with the frippery; carrying on like winning the culture wars meant something.

I look up and see a future where liberal types who didn't breed in large enough numbers are fucking overwhelmed by the offspring of the religious, the bluecollar redneck poor and the conservative immigrant.

The woke millenials will be settling into the sludge of fiscally conservative middle age, too worn out from the grind of finally moving out permanently from mom and pop's to muster up enough of a fight.

America's fucked.

They were given to the keys to the kingdom and all they managed to do was draw a graffiti cock and balls on the toilet door. Shabbily.
Goodness gracious me.

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 09 May 2018, 06:08

a Russian oligarch with links to Vladimir Putin


Kevin Bacon!
Question authority.


Return to “Nextdoorland”