President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23528
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
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42681
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby LeBaron » 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
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42681
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby LeBaron » 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: 11542
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?
TuckerCrowe wrote:Is irony your answer to everything ?

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 37825
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: ~84 bpm

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: 52656
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.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
sneelock
Posts: 11542
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.
TuckerCrowe wrote:Is irony your answer to everything ?

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23528
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!
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
mission
Posts: 2167
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.
Good.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14943
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!
Gadfly

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23528
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 09 May 2018, 15:11

I think I’m spending too much time talking to Jimbo. I can’t help shaking the feeling that Trump got himself involved with money laundering for Russian oligarchs, and when it all felt too dangerous - ran for President as a Hail Mary to gain immunity and pardon power.

Our times are so strange, a scenario like that is almost believable.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52656
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 09 May 2018, 16:55

These are explosive developments: AT&T lining Cohen's slush fund right when it (AT&T) was facing pushback from Trump's DOJ over a multi-billion dollar merger with Time Warner and a similar instance with Novartis. What are these corporate interests doing giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the point man for the president's extortionists? (I can't even believe I just typed that sentence!)

It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to preliminary conclude there's some sort of BRIBERY afoot. This is not how lobbying is done. In fact, this is precisely how it's NOT done, in order to avoid giving the impression of corruption.

The big question is: did Trump know about these payments (and share in them)? If yes, please to explain. If NO, that means Cohen was holding out on the boss, which, woah, holy shit!
Last edited by Snarfyguy on 09 May 2018, 17:54, edited 1 time in total.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
sneelock
Posts: 11542
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sneelock » 09 May 2018, 17:28

this guy is doing a little publicity for his book "Trump Russia"
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/why- ... l-manafort
I heard him on a radio interview this morning. the host asked him, straight up, how he would describe TRUMPS mob ties from the mid 80's on. the author said "Mob Friendly" :lol:
TuckerCrowe wrote:Is irony your answer to everything ?

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42681
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby LeBaron » 09 May 2018, 17:31

Snarfyguy wrote:These are explosive developments: AT&T lining Cohen's slush fund right when it (AT&T) was facing pushback from Trump's DOJ over a multi-billion merger with Time Warner and a similar instance with Novartis. What are these corporate interests doing giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the point man for the president's extortionists? (I can't even believe I just typed that sentence!)

It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to preliminary conclude there's some sort of BRIBERY afoot. This is not how lobbying is done. In fact, this is precisely how it's NOT done, in order to avoid giving the impression of corruption.

The big question is: did Trump know about these payments (and share in them)? If yes, please to explain. If NO, that means Cohen was holding out on the boss, which, woah, holy shit!


Indeed! Either way, it’s crazy! If it was a secret, then Cohen feels no loyalty to Trump whatsoever. And if DJT knew, then he’s even more brazenly corrupt than we might’ve imagined.
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: 11542
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sneelock » 09 May 2018, 17:32

well, there's SO much hubbub that DT treated Cohen like shit - yelling at him in front of others, all that sort of thing. that stuff has to make a difference.
TuckerCrowe wrote:Is irony your answer to everything ?

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14943
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 11 May 2018, 02:34

I smear you. You smear me. We're a dysfunctional coun-ter-y …

Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti has some explaining to do…

After appearing on CNN 59 times to claim the moral high ground over President Trump's alleged decade-old affair with Daniels, skeletons in Avenatti's closet are now beginning to pour out.

Questions have emerged over who's funding Avenatti, how he was privy to Trump attorney Michael Cohen's bank records - and how exactly did he obtain banking transactions for two men also named Michael Cohen, who he wrongly accused in a seven-page "dossier" released this week.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05- ... st-catches
Gadfly

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42681
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby LeBaron » 11 May 2018, 02:55

Well I sure wouldn’t hire him!
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: 52656
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 11 May 2018, 04:47

The Washington Post wrote:Rudolph W. Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump, said Wednesday that the president was unaware of Cohen’s consulting agreements.


Okay then. Trump officially has Cohen at arm's length now. Even if that changes -- but I don't see how that could happen -- either a) Trump has to have been oblivious to Cohen's shenanigans, b) Trump has to hope there's no evidence of any benefit of Cohen's business campaign going to him, or c) there's some indeterminate, unsatisfying lack of an outcome. I GUESS what's unfortunate for Trump (or maybe it just plays to his strengths) is that he can't prove a negative, where the feds CAN prove a positive disposition of the issue.

I understand the bar of finding provable corruption of this type (which is showing actual quid-pro-quo transactional conduct) is pretty high, even leaving aside Mueller's/federal prosecutors in the S.D.N.Y.'s odds of getting the SCOTUS to green-light an indictment on a sitting president, so I'm not actually falling out of my chair just yet.

It does seem like things are coming to a head, but how long have we been saying that for?
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52656
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 11 May 2018, 05:15

Jimbo wrote:I smear you. You smear me. We're a dysfunctional coun-ter-y …

Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti has some explaining to do…

After appearing on CNN 59 times to claim the moral high ground over President Trump's alleged decade-old affair with Daniels, skeletons in Avenatti's closet are now beginning to pour out.

Questions have emerged over who's funding Avenatti, how he was privy to Trump attorney Michael Cohen's bank records - and how exactly did he obtain banking transactions for two men also named Michael Cohen, who he wrongly accused in a seven-page "dossier" released this week.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05- ... st-catches

Wow, I sure didn't see THAT coming! :lol:

Anyway, it's weird how pretty much everybody has by now accepted the idea that the president was the mark in various extortion schemes, yet the idea that he may be susceptible to blackmail is somehow unthinkable because... it implies the president did something wrong???

Devin Nunes is apparently okay with hush money for sex hookups, but at the same time the concept that some rogue entity may have undue leverage over Trump is unacceptable. How is it possible to hold both of those things to be true?

EDIT

Wait, this is from today, I guess:

"I talked to the President only one time about this and that was the first day it came out and he wasn't aware of that situation that now, I guess, the facts are getting a little contorted," Giuliani said when asked about Cohen's pitch and if the President knew about it.


:lol:

So a possible backtrack is to sack Rudy.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/10/politics ... index.html
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14943
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 11 May 2018, 18:14

… Saudi Arabia's foreign minister announcing earlier that day that "his country stands ready to build nuclear weapons if Iran restarts its atomic weapons program."

(Press secretary) Sanders was asked by a reporter about the White House response to Saudi Arabia's brazen statement declaring itself willing to pursue nukes. The exchange is as follows:

QUESTION: Sarah, Saudi Arabia said that they would pursue a nuclear weapons program if Iran were to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Would they have the administration’s support in the event that that occurred?

MS. SANDERS: Right now, I don’t know that we have a specific policy announcement on that front, but I can tell you that we are very committed to making sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05- ... nukes-iran

:shock:
Gadfly