Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

A handy timeline,  it sure appears that team trump have danced around the collusion maypole, jus saying.....

Courtesy of AXIOS

https://www.axios.com/trump-giuliani-evolving-denials-russian-collusion--d04aeed1-24cc-4609-bcf4-0632a2e193bd.html

 

 

President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Wednesday night that he "never said there was no collusion" between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, and that "if the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago."

Why it matters: Trump and his team have been moving the goalposts on questions of collusion with Russia — whether it happened, when it happened, whether it's even illegal, who did it — ever since the allegations first emerged.

Show less

Timeline

  • Nov. 11, 2016: Hope Hicks denies a report that Russian experts were in contact with the Trump campaign: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”
  • Dec. 18, 2016: Kellyanne Conway denies that there was any contact between the campaign and Russians: "Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.”
  • Feb. 16, 2017: Trump says during a press conference, "I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does."
  • March 2017: In an interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump Jr. says, “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. ... But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment.”
  • July 8, 2017: Trump Jr. responds to a Times report about the now-infamous June Trump Tower meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up."
  • July 9, 2017: Trump Jr. issues a second statement, after it's revealed that he set up the meeting after being promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."
  • Dec. 28, 2017: Trump says in an interview with the Times, “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”
  • July 29, 2018: Giuliani says on Fox News, "When I say the Trump campaign, I mean the upper levels of the Trump campaign. I have no reason to believe anybody else [colluded]. The only ones I checked with obviously are the top four or five people.”
  • May 16, 2018: Giuliani tells Fox News' Laura Ingraham that looking for political "dirt" is a common practice, but that the important thing is that the campaign didn't use it: “Even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it."
  • July 30, 2018: Giuliani doubles down on collusion not being a crime: "I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding with Russians. Hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack! He didn't pay for the hacking."
  • Dec. 16, 2018: Giuliani addresses reports that Michael Cohen has given special counsel Robert Mueller "valuable information" about possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia: "I have no idea what they're talking about. I know that collusion is not a crime. It was over with by the time of the election.”
  • Jan. 16, 2019: Giuliani says on CNN, "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign…If the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago.”

 

Sure sounds like rudy is laying the groundwork for a fresh salvo of incoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Amati said:
18 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Dude!  Things are about to get strange.

It's already been a long strange trip.

The question I have is, what has been pulled in to show specifically what President Trump and his family have communicated, and when....... texts, emails, post-it notes? Without a pretty good amount of pretty hard evidence from several sources, this will blow right over the heads of the Trumpettes and ~70% of Republicans.

They just don't give a shit. Trump's their boy, they knew he was a rotten asshole when they picked him (indeed IMHO that was a big part of his appeal, for many of them). For them to stand and just nod calmly as he goes down, there will need to be serious hard evidence. Even then, expect 20+% to continue to support him.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 texts, emails, post-it notes?

Quote

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

Dog will be stunned for a little bit, then slink back in and start bullshitting on the carpet again

If this is true - I'm curious if it's Trump DOJ personnel/spouses leaking - we know Whittaker's wife has.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weightless said:

If true then doesn't that also mean Jr lied in his testimony?

Heaven forfend!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Amati said:

Dude!  Things are about to get strange.

Cohen taped everything, it will be a dream answered, if he has Donnie on tape asking him to lie.

BuzzFeed News

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter. 

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. "Make it happen," the sources said Trump told Cohen. 

And even as Trump told the public he had no business deals with Russia, the sources said Trump and his children, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr., received regular, detailed updates about the real estate development from Cohen, whom they put in charge of the project. 


Cohen pleaded guilty in November to lying about the deal in testimony and in a two-page statement to the Senate and House intelligence committees. Special counsel Robert Mueller noted that Cohen's false claim that the project ended in January 2016 was an attempt to "minimize links between the Moscow Project and Individual 1" -- widely understood to be Trump -- "in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations." 



Read more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Amati said:

Dude!  Things are about to get strange.

What? It's not like Trump's nominee for AG is on record, in a memo written this past June,  saying that if a President suborns perjury he's guilty of obstruction of justice or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 years in the can.

1752. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY1752. 

To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.

To secure a conviction for subornation of perjury, the perjury sought must actually have been committed. United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 376 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 124 (1995). The underlying perjury must be proved under the standards required by the applicable perjury statute. Thus, if section 1621 applies to the underlying perjury, the two witness rule must be met, but not if section 1623 applies to the underlying perjury. United States v. Gross, 511 F.2d 910, 915 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 (1975). Physical coercion need not be proven in prosecutions for subornation of perjury. United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 320 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 796 (1996). Conspiracy to suborn perjury may be prosecuted irrespective of whether perjury has been committed. The two witness rule does not apply in conspiracy prosecutions. Solicitation of perjured testimony also may be prosecuted as obstruction of justice irrespective of whether the perjured testimony took place. United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1395 (11th Cir. 1984).

Because the crime of subornation of perjury is distinct from that of perjury, the suborner and perjurer are not accomplices; however, a person who causes a false document to be introduced through an innocent witness can be held liable as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir. 1993).

The attorney's ethical obligations when confronted by a client who wishes to testify falsely are discussed at length in Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986). See also Rules 1-102, 4-101 and 7-109 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 1, 4, and 7, and Ethical Consideration 7-26.

[cited in JM 9-69.200]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Donnies enjoying playing in the political sandpit?  Its a big step up from the development sandpit.

There's different rules an things........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Navig8tor said:

I wonder if Donnies enjoying playing in the political sandpit?  Its a big step up from the development sandpit.

There's different rules an things........

Like he's not allowed to off competing authoritarians? Pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnie’s crying about his new AG nominee’s kind talk about Bob at the confirm hearings. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think,  Weisselberg,  Trumps CFO got given immunity back in August along with National Enquirers, Pecker, with Cohen just finished singing it would appear that Mueller has had the keys to Donnie's kingdom for a while now.

He likely has a shitload more hits to come and remember it ain't over till the fat one sings,( I know its meant to be the fat lady but a fat donnie will work).

Is the likely charge Subornation of Perjury or Obstruction of Justice? as I note it could be charged either way .

I get the feeling the shit will begin to stack up pretty shortly,  possibly why rudy has been on a baffle them with bullshit tour and I think the bullshit will be thick for the foreseeable future..

Impeachment or a Resignation -with lots of conditions attached? Surely the R's will look a little less favorably at their Golden Boy with a few felony convictions pending or maybe not.

If Donnies anything like Manafort he'll be in breach before too long.he just can't help himself and Rudy would be a dumbass to put Donnie on a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can take the cheap suit out of Queens, but you still have a cheap suit.  

Damn, I really want to see his taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

You can take the cheap suit out of Queens, but you still have a cheap suit.  

Damn, I really want to see his taxes.

You might just see Cheap Suit running down the hallway ahead of a bazillion lawsuits. Get in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Dog will be stunned for a little bit, then slink back in and start bullshitting on the carpet again

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hasher said:

Does anyone use that term?  It is quite odd to be referred to as a "Dude".  It reflects upon what follows. I use sir a lot.  I use Mr. if I don't know him well enough to use his first name.  But "dude", that's not in my bailiwick.  I have been in many places in big cities, rich and poor, parts of the world developed and not.  But "dude".  To each his own.  I will address your other craziness momentarily.  Unlike you, I'd like to be accurate.

Oh, you like to be accurate...Well then, when you do address my "craziness"  hopefully you will be more mindful of that than you were in your last effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dog said:

No....Suborning perjury, if true that would not be a nothingburger. That's an impeachable offense as Bill Clinton well knows.

Who did Bill tell to lie to Congress? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nice! said:
58 minutes ago, Dog said:

No....Suborning perjury, if true that would not be a nothingburger. That's an impeachable offense as Bill Clinton well knows.

Who did Bill tell to lie to Congress? 

Dog didn't say Bill -did- it, he just said that Bill -knows- it.

Which is probably true, Bill is pretty smart..... and he's way more honest than Dog

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent interview on CNN with the lead reporter I missed some of it.  Apparently, there’s an issue with one of the co reporters (source?) which he addressed candidly.  Said he had multiple confirmations with other sources (some law enforcement) and collaborating evidence and he is 100% confident it’s true.

Obviously, it’s an impeachable offense but we all know Trumps done much, much,worse.  I think the dems need to hold off wait for Some other bombs to drop and then drive a stake through his heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No....Suborning perjury, if true that would not be a nothingburger. That's an impeachable offense as Bill Clinton well knows.

ahhh, pairs beautifully with coffee. A tentative admission of guilt and a Clinton deflection.

Now, Trump Tower Moscow was going to be the best deal Trump's done in decades. Wonder why he wanted someone to lie about proof of what a great dealmaker Trump is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Excellent interview on CNN with the lead reporter I missed some of it.  Apparently, there’s an issue with one of the co reporters (source?) which he addressed candidly.  Said he had multiple confirmations with other sources (some law enforcement) and collaborating evidence and he is 100% confident it’s true.

Obviously, it’s an impeachable offense but we all know Trumps done much, much,worse.  I think the dems need to hold off wait for Some other bombs to drop and then drive a stake through his heart.

Would that be a Trump “steak”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for you scholars of the constitution:  Say that the latest perjury allegations prove to be true, and seemingly everyone,, including Trump's pending AG,  agrees that this is certainly an impeachable offence.  Say that the Democratic house brings impeachment forward.  Say that finally, although highly unlikely, enough Republican senators become Americans again to give at least a 2/3 vote for conviction.  Can Mitch McCturtle protect the president (and his wife's cushy job with the administration) by not allowing the senate vote for conviction to come to the floor?  I would think that the people from Kentucky that keep him in office would support him if he held it up with the idea that all this was just Trump being a great business genius and that is they voted for him.

Can Mitch stop it like he is stopping the ending of the partial shutdown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bridhb said:

A question for you scholars of the constitution:  Say that the latest perjury allegations prove to be true, and seemingly everyone,, including Trump's pending AG,  agrees that this is certainly an impeachable offence.  Say that the Democratic house brings impeachment forward.  Say that finally, although highly unlikely, enough Republican senators become Americans again to give at least a 2/3 vote for conviction.  Can Mitch McCturtle protect the president (and his wife's cushy job with the administration) by not allowing the senate vote for conviction to come to the floor?  I would think that the people from Kentucky that keep him in office would support him if he held it up with the idea that all this was just Trump being a great business genius and that is they voted for him.

Can Mitch stop it like he is stopping the ending of the partial shutdown?

Good question. It’s possible that enough GOP Senators conclude that they are headed for a bloodbath in 2020 and take the opportunity to ditch Trump. Tough spot the GOP is in - it seems like a lose/lose situation to me. If they defend Trump, they keep the third of the electorate and lose everybody else. Shitcan him and they risk losing a big chunk of the base.  I can’t think of scenario that produces victories in the next general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

Good question. It’s possible that enough GOP Senators conclude that they are headed for a bloodbath in 2020 and take the opportunity to ditch Trump. Tough spot the GOP is in - it seems like a lose/lose situation to me. If they defend Trump, they keep the third of the electorate and lose everybody else. Shitcan him and they risk losing a big chunk of the base.  I can’t think of scenario that produces victories in the next general. 

I have confidence that the Democrats will figure out the best way to screw it up.  Trump or someone that primaries him, could be in office till 2024.  The overwhelming majority of republicans still support Trump's party and with the status of the electoral college, they could pull off yet another minority win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

....... you seem to veer away sharply from the facts......

just exactly who was it that Flynn pled guilty to lying about talking to, Russia or Turkey?

In the timeline GIVEN IN COURT was Flynn working for the Trump campaign during these offenses?

-DSK

flynn gave the speeches in 2015

flynn joined the trump campaign in feb 2016

flynn shutdown his consulting firm in nov 2016

so from the time he joined the campaign until the election, flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey.  i don't know whether his consulting with turkey during the campaign was illegal or not.  he plead guilty to not registering under fara for his turkey consulting work.   I've read nothing that says flynn consulted with the russians during his time with the campaign

flynn spoke to the russian ambassador in dec 2016.  after the election.  he lied about what they discussed, not that the discussion(s) occurred.  I haven't read that anyone serious - like the fbi or mueller - believes this was illegal (ie logan act)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bridhb said:

I have confidence that the Democrats will figure out the best way to screw it up.  Trump or someone that primaries him, could be in office till 2024.  The overwhelming majority of republicans still support Trump's party and with the status of the electoral college, they could pull off yet another minority win.

 

Nothing either party is incapable of, would surprise me, anymore!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hermetic said:

flynn gave the speeches in 2015

flynn joined the trump campaign in feb 2016

flynn shutdown his consulting firm in nov 2016

so from the time he joined the campaign until the election, flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey.  i don't know whether his consulting with turkey during the campaign was illegal or not.  he plead guilty to not registering under fara for his turkey consulting work.   I've read nothing that says flynn consulted with the russians during his time with the campaign

flynn spoke to the russian ambassador in dec 2016.  after the election.  he lied about what they discussed, not that the discussion(s) occurred.  I haven't read that anyone serious - like the fbi or mueller - believes this was illegal (ie logan act)

Now you're pretty far into Dog territory.

"flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey" that includes Russia, nyet? So Flynn consulting "for Turkey" does not mean he was NOT consulting for Russia during that time

Also, you and Dog (and a bunch of others, to be fair) are in denial of two basic facts...... the timeline of his offenses, which runs THRU mid-November 2016. In other words, he was continuing to commit these offenses from before that, during the campaign........ second, the fact that Flynn copped a plea to a lesser charge. What Mueller nailed him for is not currently public knowledge, but it's much worse than lying about his contacts or he wouldn't have copped a plea.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

Who did Bill tell to lie to Congress? 

Bill Clinton asked Monica Lewinski to file a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bridhb said:

I have confidence that the Democrats will figure out the best way to screw it up.  Trump or someone that primaries him, could be in office till 2024.  The overwhelming majority of republicans still support Trump's party and with the status of the electoral college, they could pull off yet another minority win.

Point taken. But the current trend isn’t pretty, and we haven’t heard from Mueller yet. But yeah, anything is possible. 

872ECBE4-CAE9-4204-8AD2-F70B67B6D61B.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bridhb said:

I have confidence that the Democrats will figure out the best way to screw it up.  Trump or someone that primaries him, could be in office till 2024.  The overwhelming majority of republicans still support Trump's party and with the status of the electoral college, they could pull off yet another minority win.

anything that relies on Republicans doing the right thing for anything other than the Republican party aint' going to happen anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bridhb said:

A question for you scholars of the constitution:  Say that the latest perjury allegations prove to be true, and seemingly everyone,, including Trump's pending AG,  agrees that this is certainly an impeachable offence.  Say that the Democratic house brings impeachment forward.  Say that finally, although highly unlikely, enough Republican senators become Americans again to give at least a 2/3 vote for conviction.  Can Mitch McCturtle protect the president (and his wife's cushy job with the administration) by not allowing the senate vote for conviction to come to the floor?  I would think that the people from Kentucky that keep him in office would support him if he held it up with the idea that all this was just Trump being a great business genius and that is they voted for him.

Can Mitch stop it like he is stopping the ending of the partial shutdown?

At that point, given the generous scenario you’ve painted. Mitch would publicly agonize and yet reluctantly accede to the will of the people and be the great, wise statesman.

Keeping a straight face would be natural, but he’d have sensed the turning of the tide by then, and actually be sure of the number of votes to impeach a week or more beforehand.

He has no loyalty to Trump, merely to power. He’s a GOP jackal, waiting for your scenario to tear down his next victim and former boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

At that point, given the generous scenario you’ve painted. Mitch would publicly agonize and yet reluctantly accede to the will of the people and be the great, wise statesman.

Keeping a straight face would be natural, but he’d have sensed the turning of the tide by then, and actually be sure of the number of votes to impeach a week or more beforehand.

He has no loyalty to Trump, merely to power. He’s a GOP jackal, waiting for your scenario to tear down his next victim and former boss.

I think "MSNBC The Last Word" (just watched the youtube vid:   

) answered.  Like indicting a sitting president, the senate majority leader being the only person that can bring a vote before the senate is just a policy.  Tim Caine recently presented a funding bill before the senate for a vote to which Mitch promptly objected.  From there it would have taken a 60 vote majority to bring the bill to a vote.  Or at least that is how I understood it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivanka Trump issues carefully worded denial of BuzzFeed report on Trump Tower Moscow

TRAVIS GETTYS 
18 JAN 2019 AT 09:27 ET 

Ivanka Trump has denied playing a significant role in negotiations of a possible Trump Tower in Moscow in response to a BuzzFeed report about her father allegedly directing attorney Michael Cohen to commit perjury. 

The president’s daughter and senior adviser issued a statement through a spokesperson denying the website’s reporting about her involvement in the project, which Cohen has said remained under negotiation for much longer than he had told Congress. 

“Ms. Trump did not know about this proposal until after a non-binding letter of intent had been signed, never talked to anyone outside the organization about the proposal, never visited the projected project site and was only minimally involved,” the spokesperson said in a statement. 

The website reported that Cohen told special counsel Robert Mueller that he provided details about the Moscow project to the president and his eldest two children, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. 

###

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/ivanka-trump-issues-carefully-worded-denial-buzzfeed-report-trump-tower-moscow/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

flynn gave the speeches in 2015

flynn joined the trump campaign in feb 2016

flynn shutdown his consulting firm in nov 2016

so from the time he joined the campaign until the election, flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey.  i don't know whether his consulting with turkey during the campaign was illegal or not.  he plead guilty to not registering under fara for his turkey consulting work.   I've read nothing that says flynn consulted with the russians during his time with the campaign

flynn spoke to the russian ambassador in dec 2016.  after the election.  he lied about what they discussed, not that the discussion(s) occurred.  I haven't read that anyone serious - like the fbi or mueller - believes this was illegal (ie logan act)

Now you're pretty far into Dog territory.

"flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey" that includes Russia, nyet? So Flynn consulting "for Turkey" does not mean he was NOT consulting for Russia during that time

Also, you and Dog (and a bunch of others, to be fair) are in denial of two basic facts...... the timeline of his offenses, which runs THRU mid-November 2016. In other words, he was continuing to commit these offenses from before that, during the campaign........ second, the fact that Flynn copped a plea to a lesser charge. What Mueller nailed him for is not currently public knowledge, but it's much worse than lying about his contacts or he wouldn't have copped a plea.

you didn't even read what I wrote.  I can tell because you make the same points that I do, except I'm trying to deal with the offenses (facts) as spelled out in the court filings - not maybes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hermetic said:
59 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

"flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey" that includes Russia, nyet? So Flynn consulting "for Turkey" does not mean he was NOT consulting for Russia during that time

Also, you and Dog (and a bunch of others, to be fair) are in denial of two basic facts...... the timeline of his offenses, which runs THRU mid-November 2016. In other words, he was continuing to commit these offenses from before that, during the campaign........ second, the fact that Flynn copped a plea to a lesser charge. What Mueller nailed him for is not currently public knowledge, but it's much worse than lying about his contacts or he wouldn't have copped a plea.

you didn't even read what I wrote.  I can  tell because you make the same points that I do, except I'm trying to deal with the offenses (facts) as spelled out in the court filings - not maybes.

 

You seem to be projecting. I did in fact read what you wrote. I even quoted some of it, I found wisdom and truth in (some of) your words.

They just don't point to the conclusion you're reaching and stretching for. Denying the basic facts of how plea bargains work does not improve your position

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
9 minutes ago, hermetic said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

"flynn was also consulting for turkey.  not russia, turkey" that includes Russia, nyet? So Flynn consulting "for Turkey" does not mean he was NOT consulting for Russia during that time

Also, you and Dog (and a bunch of others, to be fair) are in denial of two basic facts...... the timeline of his offenses, which runs THRU mid-November 2016. In other words, he was continuing to commit these offenses from before that, during the campaign........ second, the fact that Flynn copped a plea to a lesser charge. What Mueller nailed him for is not currently public knowledge, but it's much worse than lying about his contacts or he wouldn't have copped a plea.

you didn't even read what I wrote.  I can  tell because you make the same points that I do, except I'm trying to deal with the offenses (facts) as spelled out in the court filings - not maybes.

 

You seem to be projecting. I did in fact read what you wrote. I even quoted some of it, I found wisdom and truth in (some of) your words.

They just don't point to the conclusion you're reaching and stretching for. Denying the basic facts of how plea bargains work does not improve your position

do you think there is any chance in hell that mueller would allow flynn to plea away conspiring with the russians for a no time charge of lying to the fbi and fara?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Ivanka Trump issues carefully worded denial of BuzzFeed report on Trump Tower Moscow

TRAVIS GETTYS 
18 JAN 2019 AT 09:27 ET 

Ivanka Trump has denied playing a significant role in negotiations of a possible Trump Tower in Moscow in response to a BuzzFeed report about her father allegedly directing attorney Michael Cohen to commit perjury. 

The president’s daughter and senior adviser issued a statement through a spokesperson denying the website’s reporting about her involvement in the project, which Cohen has said remained under negotiation for much longer than he had told Congress. 

“Ms. Trump did not know about this proposal until after a non-binding letter of intent had been signed, never talked to anyone outside the organization about the proposal, never visited the projected project site and was only minimally involved,” the spokesperson said in a statement. 

The website reported that Cohen told special counsel Robert Mueller that he provided details about the Moscow project to the president and his eldest two children, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. 

###

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/ivanka-trump-issues-carefully-worded-denial-buzzfeed-report-trump-tower-moscow/ 

Sounds like she, like Giuliani, sees the hammer coming down and is trying to distance herself from the bullseye (I mean, "registration mark").

Sad that it looks like Daddy's little girl is stepping away...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

do you think there is any chance in hell that mueller would allow flynn to plea away conspiring with the russians for a no time charge of lying to the fbi and fara?

Yes. For the right evidence against a bigger mark.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Ohr testimony is also further evidence that the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its Page warrant application. We already knew the bureau failed to inform the court it knew the dossier had come from a rival campaign. But the FISA application additionally claimed the FBI was “unaware of any derogatory information pertaining” to Mr. Steele, that he was “reliable,” that his “reporting” in this case was “credible.”....

"This testimony has two other implications. First, it further demonstrates the accuracy of the House Intelligence Committee Republicans’ memo of 2018—which noted Mr. Ohr’s role and pointed out that the FBI had not been honest about its knowledge of the dossier and failed to inform the court of Mrs. Ohr’s employment at Fusion GPS. The testimony also destroys any remaining credibility of the Democratic response, in which Mr. Schiff and his colleagues claimed Mr. Ohr hadn’t met with the FBI or told them anything about his wife or about Mr. Steele’s bias until after the election".

https://outline.com/ANjgbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hermetic said:

do you think there is any chance in hell that mueller would allow flynn to plea away conspiring with the russians for a no time charge of lying to the fbi and fara?

Yes.

That is exactly the way good prosecutors work a plea bargain, with a person who has useful info on another bigger criminal

It's the basic nature of how plea bargains work.

If Mueller had Flynn nailed for -only- lying, and Flynn saw no hope of beating the rap, what does he gain by pleading guilty? He saw enough of Mueller's cards to realize that he was going to get nailed for something much worse if he didn't cooperate. Also, he did not have a "no-time charge" as he did not get any sentencing guarantee and that charge can definitely land one in the big house

Add to the above: this is exactly how Mueller has operated in the past on high-value, difficult-to-nail prosecutions.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Yes. For the right evidence against a bigger mark.

If you believe that you must also believe said bigger mark is going to be indicted for some crime Flynn can testify to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flynn ain't flying alone, Mueller won't present anything with only one source. Once again, this will not end well for Trump, his family and his associates.  Buckle up buckaroos, it's about the get really bumpy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

this will not end well for Trump

As a former prosecutor I can say yes we flip folks.  You all know that.

As a defense attorney I can say we attack the investigation.  You all know that.

As for Trump, the walls are closing in.  And he knows that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

If you believe that you must also believe said bigger mark is going to be indicted for some crime Flynn can testify to.

Do you believe there ISN'T a "bigger mark" on the near horizon?

Don't forget, there are a pile of sealed indictments sitting on a desk, waiting for the right time

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hasher said:

As a former prosecutor I can say yes we flip folks.  You all know that.

As a defense attorney I can say we attack the investigation.  You all know that.

As for Trump, the walls are closing in.  And he knows that.

 

This will be a fitting end for this exceptionally crooked, and venal, First Family!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dog said:

If you believe that you must also believe said bigger mark is going to be indicted for some crime Flynn can testify to.

maybe, maybe not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

The way these drips keep increasing Trump needs to find some good plumbers.

LOL. I see what you did there.

Although that strategy didn't work out so well for Nixon...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you believe there ISN'T a "bigger mark" on the near horizon?

Don't forget, there are a pile of sealed indictments sitting on a desk, waiting for the right time

-DSK

 

The day when the Prez is no longer the Prez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

do you think there is any chance in hell that mueller would allow flynn to plea away conspiring with the russians for a no time charge of lying to the fbi and fara?

Yes.

That is exactly the way good prosecutors work a plea bargain, with a person who has useful info on another bigger criminal

It's the basic nature of how plea bargains work.

If Mueller had Flynn nailed for -only- lying, and Flynn saw no hope of beating the rap, what does he gain by pleading guilty? He saw enough of Mueller's cards to realize that he was going to get nailed for something much worse if he didn't cooperate. Also, he did not have a "no-time charge" as he did not get any sentencing guarantee and that charge can definitely land one in the big house

Add to the above: this is exactly how Mueller has operated in the past on high-value, difficult-to-nail prosecutions.

so in your mind,  mueller has flynn nailed on treason yet tells the judge to let him walk.  you have a vivid imagination

the facts (the indictment) point to something much easier to believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

do you think there is any chance in hell that mueller would allow flynn to plea away conspiring with the russians for a no time charge of lying to the fbi and fara?

Sure he would if Flynn is going to give up someone bigger ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

As a former prosecutor I can say yes we flip folks.  You all know that.

As a defense attorney I can say we attack the investigation.  You all know that.

As for Trump, the walls are closing in.  And he knows that.

Winning the Oval Office was his worst nightmare all wrapped up in gold foil and ribbons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hermetic said:

so in your mind,  mueller has flynn nailed on treason yet tells the judge to let him walk.  you have a vivid imagination

the facts (the indictment) point to something much easier to believe

Let's see.  The Judge has more information than we do and it was given to him by Mueller.  The Judge wants to see more cooperation and Mueller was already content.  The pressure is on Flynn to be more expansive.  Clearly Flynn is in deep shit and sinking fast.  He is grabbing hands and they are going down with him.  Mueller threw him a life line and the Judge won't let him catch it.  Got it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

do you think there is any chance in hell that mueller would allow flynn to plea away conspiring with the russians for a no time charge of lying to the fbi and fara?

Yes, if the threat of that charge allowed him to use testimony he otherwise couldn't obtain from Flynn to be used to nail someone higher up. The FBI have made worse deals than that to get to people lower in the food chain than, say, the president of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bridhb said:

 Can Mitch McCturtle protect the president (and his wife's cushy job with the administration) by not allowing the senate vote for conviction to come to the floor?

 

I dunno but I suspect not because the Chief Justice would preside over the Senate.

Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean said:

Good question. It’s possible that enough GOP Senators conclude that they are headed for a bloodbath in 2020 and take the opportunity to ditch Trump. Tough spot the GOP is in - it seems like a lose/lose situation to me. If they defend Trump, they keep the third of the electorate and lose everybody else. Shitcan him and they risk losing a big chunk of the base.  I can’t think of scenario that produces victories in the next general. 

Once a trial for impeachment starts, I don't think Mitch can stop it. The Chief Justice would preside, and only he could stop the proceedings. However, Mitch would have to let it get that far. He could refuse to convene the Senate for the purpose of impeachment, and he could also strong arm his members not to vote guilty.

I think that before it ever got that far, the Republicans would endeavor to have Trump resign and have Pence pardon him for the "good of the country," which is another way of saying they would want to clean up the mess as quickly and quietly as possible so as to reduce the long term fallout. That's what they did with Nixon. Unfortunately, Trump doesn't hold the power and prestige of the Republican Party in the same esteem as did Tricky Dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hasher said:

Let's see.  The Judge has more information than we do and it was given to him by Mueller.  The Judge wants to see more cooperation and Mueller was already content.  The pressure is on Flynn to be more expansive.  Clearly Flynn is in deep shit and sinking fast.  He is grabbing hands and they are going down with him.  Mueller threw him a life line and the Judge won't let him catch it.  Got it?

of course I get it.

but I can not recall the fbi letting a traitor walk.  can you?

I can see them letting flynn walk on the lying and fara for his cooperation, but letting a three star walk for treason?  no way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I can not recall the fbi letting a traitor walk

Are you kidding?  Or just under read.  It happens daily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hermetic said:

of course I get it.

but I can not recall the fbi letting a traitor walk.  can you?

I can see them letting flynn walk on the lying and fara for his cooperation, but letting a three star walk for treason?  no way

He's not been pardoned, he's not been given immunity. and he's not been charged with treason yet. Who said he'd completely walk when all is said and done? The FBI need leverage, a sealed treason indictment would give them that, and provided he doesn't back out of the agreement that treason indictment could go away and turn into something without the death penalty at a later date. That and the FBI have let murderers walk.

Everyone on the right keeps pretending that things don't makes sense now as if they know everything Mueller knows and that Mueller isn't still progressing the investigation, leaving everything as it stands right this very second. It's either a very stupid or deliberately dishonest way to view the matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:
10 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I can not recall the fbi letting a traitor walk

Are you kidding?  Or just under read.  It happens daily.

who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's either a very stupid or deliberately dishonest way to view the matter. 

 

wishful thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lifted Tack said:

Republicans would endeavor to have Trump resign and have Pence pardon him for the "good of the country,"

I presume Trump would want a deal that covers family and friends and state charges. That would make it a lot harder than the Nixon thing. Also, Trump doesn't seem to care at all about collateral damage. Maybe I'm indulging in nostalgia but I think the Nixon thing was less horrific because at some level Nixon cared about the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hermetic said:

of course I get it.

but I can not recall the fbi letting a traitor walk.  can you?

I can see them letting flynn walk on the lying and fara for his cooperation, but letting a three star walk for treason?  no way

First, it isn't the FBI. They investigate. It's the DOJ and in this case in particular, Mueller and the other Federal prosecutors. An example of plea bargaining away treason, Jonathon Pollard, which allowed that piece of shit to get parole in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, weightless said:

I presume Trump would want a deal that covers family and friends and state charges. That would make it a lot harder than the Nixon thing. Also, Trump doesn't seem to care at all about collateral damage. Maybe I'm indulging in nostalgia but I think the Nixon thing was less horrific because at some level Nixon cared about the country.

I'll begrudgingly agree that Nixon did not do what he did for personal wealth gain.... Perhaps for personal ego gain, but not wealth.

Trump is all about ego, and profit, personal profit. If he didn't think he could make a big buck on being POTUS he wouldn't have bothered. It was all about him, and his bank account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Shitstain can get any deal that would keep NY from sending him to Rikers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'll begrudgingly agree that Nixon did not do what he did for personal wealth gain.... Perhaps for personal ego gain, but not wealth.

Trump is all about ego, and profit, personal profit. If he didn't think he could make a big buck on being POTUS he wouldn't have bothered. It was all about him, and his bank account.

I don't think an enemies list and secret tapes, and lying and being a paranoid asshole shows much regard for the country. Just a lifer pol doing what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hermetic said:

who?

Do you think these things can be talked about?  I can only say what I know.  You don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I don't think that Shitstain can get any deal that would keep NY from sending Shitstain to Rikers.

Seems like that may just be a cost of doing business in the Trump's social world. 

Eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner

Charles Kushner (born May 16, 1954) is an American real estate developer. He founded Kushner Companies in 1985. In 2005, he was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering, and served time in federal prison. After his release, he resumed his career in real estate. His son, Jared Kushner, is the husband of Ivanka Trump and son-in-law and senior advisor to President Donald Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life changes when you grab it by its high heels, spin it around upside down, kiss it on the lips and hold it close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I don't think an enemies list and secret tapes, and lying and being a paranoid asshole shows much regard for the country. Just a lifer pol doing what they do.

But did he make a personal, financial profit from it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, hasher said:

Life changes when you grab it by its high heels, spin it around upside down, kiss it on the lips and hold it close.

reminds me of something so very funky.....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

Do you think these things can be talked about?  I can only say what I know.  You don't know.

That's a dodge worthy of Hopeless Hillary.

Can you post a photocopy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hasher said:

Does anyone use that term?  It is quite odd to be referred to as a "Dude".  It reflects upon what follows. I use sir a lot.  I use Mr. if I don't know him well enough to use his first name.  But "dude", that's not in my bailiwick.  I have been in many places in big cities, rich and poor, parts of the world developed and not.  But "dude".  To each his own.  I will address your other craziness momentarily.  Unlike you, I'd like to be accurate.

I do but I use it with dudes I know to be dudes. It's a fine word and recall that we are ostensibly sailors. Dog is just being a ... well, you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

who?

Ever heard of Witness Protection? Criminals flip on their bosses and get sent to Utah all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

of course I get it.

but I can not recall the fbi letting a traitor walk.  can you?

I can see them letting flynn walk on the lying and fara for his cooperation, but letting a three star walk for treason?  no way

First, it isn't the FBI. They investigate. It's the DOJ and in this case in particular, Mueller and the other Federal prosecutors. An example of plea bargaining away treason, Jonathon Pollard, which allowed that piece of shit to get parole in 2015.

30 years is not the same as letting flynn walk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
1 hour ago, hasher said:

Do you think these things can be talked about?  I can only say what I know.  You don't know.

That's a dodge worthy of Hopeless Hillary.

no shit.  I laughed at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bhyde said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

who?

Ever heard of Witness Protection? Criminals flip on their bosses and get sent to Utah all the time.

yes, I understand the concept of pleading for a lesser charge.  but not treason.  ain't gonna happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

But did he make a personal, financial profit from it?

I know where you're going there and we don't know. He had 15m when he died in 94 per google. He was in the Navy and then all gov all the time plus book sales. My guess is what with all the crap that went on is sure he did. He had two very.nice homes. The estate is worth 35m now. Yes he was a crook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

I don't think an enemies list and secret tapes, and lying and being a paranoid asshole shows much regard for the country. Just a lifer pol doing what they do.

Yeah, I get that. I still think Nixon was more complex than Trump. No doubt he was a crook and a schemer and an egotistical bastard but he had some depth to him. Of course, things tend to look better in retrospect. Listened to this and found it evocative:

http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/slow_burn/2018/01/the_final_episode_of_slate_s_watergate_podcast.html

https://megaphone.link/SLT7840590654

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

30 years is not the same as letting flynn walk

Yes, they are not the same thing. The point is that Pollard walked out of prison and lives today on support from the Israeli government when he should have remained in prison on a treason charge. Pollard successfully plea bargained away the treason charge.

Moreover, Pollard was an apex criminal whereas Flynn even as National Security Advisor was an underling willing to testify against a higher up. Again, those circumstances are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

yes, I understand the concept of pleading for a lesser charge.  but not treason.  ain't gonna happen

Then you should understand that if Mueller has Flynn on treason, Flynn would be more than willing to plea to a lesser charge to flip on his boss. It's not that hard to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites