President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12314
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 06 May 2018, 01:11

Well, I’m in some serious need of cheering up. I spend too much of my day with TRUMP supporters and I’m beginning to seriously doubt their capacity to stop supporting him. On the contrary — they are talking about the economy and employment rates improving. While we are talking about one legal and public relations dumpster fire after another, they are talking about how President Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize. I shit you not.

The same people who tell me that they heard the comedian Michelle Wolf was arrested for bestiality (she wasn’t) refuse to believe ANY news that doesn’t please them. This week the White House lied and lied and lied about lying. I don’t know a single TRUMP supporter who gives a shit. They still talk about locking Hillary up. If Mueller has the goods on TRUMP and he releases it to the public, I think the best we can hope for is that TRUMP locks Hillary up.

TRUMP’s goofy doctor fessed up that DT himself wrote that ridiculous letter he signed his name to during the campaign.. So what, Hillary has done worse. He fires real lawyers and replaces them with Crazy Rudy. So what? Hillary, Hillary, Hillary....

Many Republicans of today are like bikers in gangs. They don’t give a shit what you think of them and they probably don’t need to get to know you to know they don’t like you. This gives them a tremendous advantage — they are all, more or less, on the same page.

Meanwhile, I’m getting it from both sides. The lefties that also can’t shut up about Hillary tell me I’m a corporate whore for voting for her. I’m also “holier than thou” according to dems who think Bernie should have sat the last one out.

I don’t forcast “a blue wave” — I think we’ll be lucky to get a majority in one house or the other. Republicans are banging the war drums. Sure, there’s some discontent but i think TRUMP is going to be taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning and most of the party is going to be behind him. We’ve got our work cut out for us.

I mean, you’d think this week would be encouraging but I’m not encouraged. I think we are SO FUCKED.
Give me a C, a bouncy C!

User avatar
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 06 May 2018, 03:53

I feel your pain, snee.
I feel your pain.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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: 23779
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 06 May 2018, 05:03

Snee - I can argue both sides of “screwed” and “not screwed”.

On the “not” side of the ledger - I think we’ll get something at least somewhat wave-like. I think we are going to take the house concincly. I give us a 30% chance of taking the senate. But once we have the house, there will start to be some consequences for President Mulligan. Not only from our side of the aisle, but from the folks on the GOP side no longer freaked out about the mid-terms.

I think his lame-duck status kicks in there, and then I think he’ll be in a weak-enough position to be defeated if Dems can muster a decent candidate.

On the “screwed” side...we are still going to live in a country with a lot of the types you described in your post. In that podcast with Jaron Lanier I posted on your Facebook thread, he mentioned a book called “Finite and Infinte Games” - which is essentially about game theory. But the premise is that some games are meant to end, and others are meant to go on endlessly.

Politics used to be an infinite game. Your team one for a while, then the other team won. Each side recognized the authority of the other to lead when they won.

The problem is, the GOP started playing a finite game decades ago, while Dems keep playing the for infinity. That can’t go on. As long as one side is working the doomsday machine, there’s not a lot of future to look forward to.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

Six String
Posts: 20182
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Six String » 06 May 2018, 15:36

LeBaron wrote:Holy shit I just read this NYT piece on Cohen and I’m speechless. They say Trump likes people out central casting and his PERSONAL LAWYER is SO FUCKING SHADY ITS UNBELIEVABLE. If the full weight of the US Attorney of the Southern District is after this guy, he’s so fucked. So fucked. There’s almost no way they don’t find a boatload of serious federal crimes. He’ll rue the day he ever got mixed up with Donald J. Trump, that’s for sure. Unless, of course, the only way he can avoid the avalanche of legal shit on its way is to sing like a bird.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/busi ... umn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Yes, that was pretty eye opening if unsurprising.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12314
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 06 May 2018, 21:25

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... clear-deal
Disgustipatin’.

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.

People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.
Give me a C, a bouncy C!

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 15639
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 07 May 2018, 06:20

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.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

User avatar
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 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?
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 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.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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: 23779
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?
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 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.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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
Jimbo
Posts: 15639
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
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

User avatar
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 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.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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: 53082
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: 38633
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: ~84 bpm

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: 23779
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?
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 15962
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: 23779
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.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 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.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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
Stille Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43110
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Stille Baron » 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.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

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: 12314
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?
Give me a C, a bouncy C!