Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

A desperate lawyer as well.

'Kangaroo court': Giuliani says he would be crazy to let Trump be interviewed by Mueller's team

Source: The Washington Post




By John Wagner 
June 20 at 6:56 AM 

President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani referred to the team of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on Tuesday night as a “kangaroo court” and suggested it would be malpractice for him to allow Trump to agree to an interview. 

During an appearance on Fox News, Giuliani was asked by host Sean Hannity if he could “foresee any circumstances” under which he would allow Trump to appear before Mueller, who is investigating possible coordination between Russia and Trump’s campaign in 2016. 

“Do I look crazy?” Giuliani responded. “So far, you know, I still have all my senses, and I’m a heck of a lawyer. And I get drummed out of the profession if I did. I mean, the reality is, you don’t put your client in a kangaroo court.” 

His comments come as Trump’s legal team has been weighing whether to do a face-to-face interview with Mueller’s team as part of his assessment of whether Trump has obstructed the investigation.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kangaroo-court-giuliani-says-he-would-be-crazy-to-let-trump-be-interviewed-by-muellers-team/2018/06/20/b4efdc1c-7472-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will welcome Dog, and TMSAIL, into the Democratic Party as well.

GOP strategist Steve Schmidt denounces party, will vote for Democrats

Source: The Hill

BY MORGAN GSTALTER - 06/20/18 07:33 AM EDT 

Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, one of the GOP's loudest critics of President Trump, renounced the party early Wednesday and announced that he will begin voting for Democrats. 

Schmidt slammed Trump in a Twitter thread, saying he was leaving the party that once ended slavery. 

“29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life,” Schmidt tweeted. 
“This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party,” Schmidt wrote. 


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/393170-gop-strategist-denounces-party-will-vote-for-democrats 
 

Share this post


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

We will welcome Dog, and TMSAIL, into the Democratic Party as well.

GOP strategist Steve Schmidt denounces party, will vote for Democrats

Source: The Hill

BY MORGAN GSTALTER - 06/20/18 07:33 AM EDT 

Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, one of the GOP's loudest critics of President Trump, renounced the party early Wednesday and announced that he will begin voting for Democrats. 

Schmidt slammed Trump in a Twitter thread, saying he was leaving the party that once ended slavery. 

“29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life,” Schmidt tweeted. 
“This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party,” Schmidt wrote. 


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/393170-gop-strategist-denounces-party-will-vote-for-democrats 
 

Dayum.  He went farther than I did.  He's really gone far down the well of UnPatriotism!  I think he gets it wrong in one respect.  A great deal of our problems, imo, stem from giving our allegiance to one party or the other.  Granted, even on an issue by issue basis, the GOP is doing little to earn my vote at the moment, mostly because I did not inherit enough money to be a Good American, but that doesn't mean that the democRATS can count on my vote without earning it.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

A desperate president will roll the dice and pardon him. He will tell the country it is because of malicious prosecution and a corrupt justice department. The Supreme Court will tell him, no. It all falls apart shortly after that.

A pardon is a trap. If Trump pardons Manafort, Manafort can no longer claim protection under the 5th, and can be compelled to testify. It also exposes Trump to witness-tampering and obstruction charges.  I'm sure that Trump is dying to issue pardons and firing Mueller and his team, but as hapless as his legal team is they can't be so stupid as to advise Trump it's a good idea.

Share this post


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

A pardon is a trap. If Trump pardons Manafort, Manafort can no longer claim protection under the 5th, and can be compelled to testify. It also exposes Trump to witness-tampering and obstruction charges.  I'm sure that Trump is dying to issue pardons and firing Mueller and his team, but as hapless as his legal team is they can't be so stupid as to advise Trump it's a good idea.

All true, it must be hell to live under a soap opera of your own creation.

Share this post


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

A pardon is a trap. If Trump pardons Manafort, Manafort can no longer claim protection under the 5th, and can be compelled to testify. It also exposes Trump to witness-tampering and obstruction charges.  I'm sure that Trump is dying to issue pardons and firing Mueller and his team, but as hapless as his legal team is they can't be so stupid as to advise Trump it's a good idea.

Not sure I understand this - how can one's protections under the 5th be temporally applied? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not sure I understand this - how can one's protections under the 5th be temporally applied? 

If one is pardoned, they can no longer claim that testifying will incriminate them, as they are free from prosecution for that particular crime. It would be bad news for Trump if Manafort didn't have 5th amendment protection.

That said, and I've suggested this is the case for a long time, I don't think Manafort will ever testify. He will accept any amount of jail time. He knows he is relatively safe in jail, and would prefer that to one day drinking some uranium tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

Not sure I understand this - how can one's protections under the 5th be temporally applied? 

I had the same question.

The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to testify if that testimony could place you in jeopardy of criminal prosecution. But that jeopardy is the key. You cannot be compelled to put yourself at risk. Remove the risk, and you CAN be compelled to testify.

https://www.quora.com/Would-a-full-presidential-pardon-void-an-individuals-5th-amendment-protection-from-self-incrimination-on-actions-cover-by-the-pardon

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Bl and Hyde - thanks.  IANAL - and haven't read much at all about 5th amendment protections beyond law classes a long time ago.  Appreciate the info. 

I'm not really sure it comes up that often, since most people that are pardoned have already been convicted. That's usually after the 5th would be useful. I think. Maybe.

Paging Sol. Dr. Sol to the cesspool please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nice! said:
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not sure I understand this - how can one's protections under the 5th be temporally applied? 

If one is pardoned, they can no longer claim that testifying will incriminate them, as they are free from prosecution for that particular crime. It would be bad news for Trump if Manafort didn't have 5th amendment protection.

That said, and I've suggested this is the case for a long time, I don't think Manafort will ever testify. He will accept any amount of jail time. He knows he is relatively safe in jail, and would prefer that to one day drinking some uranium tea.

what manafort is charged with (as far as we have been told) doesn't seem to involve the donald - fara + money laundering/tax evasion from the ukraine election.

anything beyond those charges, like any "collusion" during the campaign, he can use the 5th for protection

Share this post


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

what manafort is charged with (as far as we have been told) doesn't seem to involve the donald - fara + money laundering/tax evasion from the ukraine election.

anything beyond those charges, like any "collusion" during the campaign, he can use the 5th for protection

Unlikely. If Trump were to pardon him only on the charges he currently faces, then he could still face other charges, inc possibly involving Trump. While he could plead the 5th on those, more than likely Mueller would already have the evidence he needs. There's also a perjury trap. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can a pardon be broad enough to cover all and any crimes committed before 2018/date of pardon?

In theory yes. But as covered above, Manafort could then be compelled to testify against Trump since he's no longer in jeapardy of prosecution. 

Share this post


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

In theory yes. But as covered above, Manafort could then be compelled to testify against Trump since he's no longer in jeapardy of prosecution. 

"I was taking so many meds for stress during that period that I truly cannot accurately recall events & conversations that took place 2 years ago."

I cannot recall. How do you compel testimony then? Especially if all previous crimes are pardoned.

Share this post


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

"I was taking so many meds for stress during that period that I truly cannot accurately recall events & conversations that took place 2 years ago."

I cannot recall. How do you compel testimony then? Especially if all previous crimes are pardoned.

I'm thinking the judge would find him in contempt if he tried the Jeff Sessions "I can't remember" strategy.

Share this post


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

I'm thinking the judge would find him in contempt if he tried the Jeff Sessions "I can't remember" strategy.

I think that defence would work especially if a doctor testified that clonazepam, cocaine and alcohol together don't really help the brain retain stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

"I was taking so many meds for stress during that period that I truly cannot accurately recall events & conversations that took place 2 years ago."

I cannot recall. How do you compel testimony then? Especially if all previous crimes are pardoned.

Sitting in jail on contempt charges might improve his memory.

Share this post


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

Sitting in jail on contempt charges might improve his memory.

How long can you keep a multimillionaire sitting in jail for not being able to remember after he has cited drugs for lapse of recall?

Share this post


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

How long can you keep a multimillionaire sitting in jail for not being able to remember after he has cited drugs for lapse of recall?

Take maximum penalty for false testimony and multiply by 75% is my reasonable suggestion.

Share this post


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

what manafort is charged with (as far as we have been told) doesn't seem to involve the donald - fara + money laundering/tax evasion from the ukraine election.

anything beyond those charges, like any "collusion" during the campaign, he can use the 5th for protection

Unlikely. If Trump were to pardon him only on the charges he currently faces, then he could still face other charges, inc possibly involving Trump. While he could plead the 5th on those, more than likely Mueller would already have the evidence he needs. There's also a perjury trap. 

if you're talking about something other than being pardoned and subsequently taking the fifth, ignore this

I could certainly see the donald's team waiting for mueller to finish, which essentially locks the charges, then pardoning manafort for his current indictments / charges

I hope he doesn't, because if manafort evaded taxes - he should pay.  ditto money laundering.  the fara stuff is silly

but beyond the charges in the indictment, if manafort is pardoned on those - he can plead the fith on any further charges.  not unlikely - fact

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Caroline Orr

Source: Michael Cohen May Cooperate With Mueller Probe

Reprinted with permission from Shareblue.

 

Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen is ‘willing to give’ information about Trump to investigators, according to a friend of Cohen.

Speaking to CNN, the source said Cohen is willing to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation by providing information about Trump’s business dealings.

“He knows a lot of things about the President and he’s not averse to talking in the right situation,” Cohen’s friend told CNN. “If they want information on Trump, he’s willing to give it.”

Another friend said Cohen “feels let down by [Trump] and isolated by him.”

Cohen, who once said he would take a bullet for Trump, has come under increasing pressure to cooperate over the past several months, as federal investigators began looking into his financial history.

He is currently under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations stemming from, among other things, the payment he made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Cohen facilitated the $130,000 payment to Daniels in the weeks before the 2016 election to stop her from talking about her alleged affair with Trump.

However, he failed to report this payment to the Federal Election Commission — and according to records provided by Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti, Cohen may have been reimbursed for the money by a Putin-linked Russian oligarch.

He was also allegedly involved in a number of shady dealings with executives at the National Enquirer, who reportedly paid off several sources and witnesses to hide embarrassing stories about Trump.

Pressure on Cohen ramped up in April, when the FBI raided his home and offices, seizing some 3.7 million files and hundreds of encrypted messages as part of its investigation.

Not long after the raid, sources close to Trump started expressing concern that Cohen may flip if faced with serious charges. At the time, Politico reported that Trump’s inner circle was actively discussing the possibility.

The new report from CNN comes less than a week after ABC News reported that Cohen was splitting from his current legal team and was expected to begin cooperating with investigators in the near future.

As Trump’s longtime attorney and fixer, Cohen holds the key to many of Trump’s most guarded secrets — but now, it appears that federal investigators may have just cracked the code.

Published with permission of The American Independent.

 

http://www.nationalmemo.com/source-michael-cohen-may-cooperate-with-mueller-probe/

 

Share this post


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

see post 8579

from yesterday

 

Well, EEXXXCCCCCUUUUUUSSSSEEEEE ME!

LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!LOCK HIM UP!!  LOCK HIM UP!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RKoch said:

In theory yes. But as covered above, Manafort could then be compelled to testify against Trump since he's no longer in jeapardy of prosecution. 

Does future persecution count?  He’s not going have many friends or places to hide if he does. 

I’m not suggesting I want to it happen, just asking the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VhmSays said:

I think that defence would work especially if a doctor testified that clonazepam, cocaine and alcohol together don't really help the brain retain stuff. 

That’s definitely on the option list I’m sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be getting close if both Manafort and Cohen roll over and agree to testify!! Do they have to be charged with a specific and relevant crime if the prosecution want to follow a particular line of questions at court? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mad said:

Does future persecution count?  He’s not going have many friends or places to hide if he does. 

I’m not suggesting I want to it happen, just asking the question. 

I am unconvinced Manafart is being pressured to flip on Trump. The circumstances point more to it being him testifying against some Russian mobsters. 

 Cohen is a different kettle of fish though. Today he publicly criticized his take-a-bullet-for BFF POTUS and resigned from the RNC. 

 https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485328/michael-cohen-resignation-rnc-trump-family-separation

 

 magic-8-ball-All-Signs-point-to-one-dire

Share this post


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

I am unconvinced Manafart is being pressured to flip on Trump. The circumstances point more to it being him testifying against some Russian mobsters. 

 Cohen is a different kettle of fish though. Today he publicly criticized his take-a-bullet-for BFF POTUS and resigned from the RNC. 

 https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485328/michael-cohen-resignation-rnc-trump-family-separation

 

 magic-8-ball-All-Signs-point-to-one-dire

You can’t be a finance director for the RNC if you cooperate with the prosecutor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You can’t be a finance director for the RNC if you cooperate with the prosecutor. 

 Problematic, I'd say. 

Trump's stinginess may be biting him on the butt. From what I have read his minions were largely unpaid by him, they were expected to earn by mere association. Sorta like that Joe Pesci character in "Casino", based on a real character. The guy was assigned to ride herd on the biggest money-making operation the mob had but he still had to "earn", and  that earning eventually brought the whole show down. 

Penny wise, FBI foolish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally evidence of collusion!

 "WASHINGTON — The Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paulie Whoopsie's Motion to Suppress the 21 bankers boxes of documents and file cabinet from his storage unit...  denied.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/21/paul-manafort-search-evidence-trial-662748

 

Motion to suppress:  you have the evidence that sinks my ship, but you can't use it.  

Judge: Nope.  Not good for the Campaign Chairman, but man can he count delegates.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a strong feeling this shitstorm isn’t going to end well for a whole lot of people. Trumpworld shady shenanigans have been going on for decades. There must be tentacles emanating in all directions as far as the eye can see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority of Americans say Trump should agree to interview with Mueller: poll

Source: Reuters




JUNE 21, 2018 / 4:53 PM / UPDATED 23 MINUTES AGO 

Maria Caspani 

(Reuters) - Most Americans think President Donald Trump should agree to an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, if asked, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows. 

-snip- 

** Sixty percent of U.S. adults said President Trump should agree to an interview with Special Counsel Mueller, to answer questions about whether there was any coordination between associates of Trump’s 2016 election campaign and Russia. Trump has repeatedly said there was no collusion, and Russia has denied election meddling. 

** Fifty percent of registered Republicans said in the poll that Trump should not agree to an interview with Mueller while more than 1 in 3 said he should. Eighty-three percent of registered Democrats said they were in favor of the meeting. 

** In recent months, Trump has threatened to fire Mueller, drawing bipartisan criticism from lawmakers and the public. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in May showed that 40 percent of Americans said Trump should not fire Mueller, while 27 percent said he should and 34 said they were unsure. 





Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller/majority-of-americans-say-trump-should-agree-to-interview-with-mueller-poll-idUSKBN1JH37E?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews 

Share this post


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

I got a strong feeling this shitstorm isn’t going to end well for a whole lot of people. Trumpworld shady shenanigans have been going on for decades. There must be tentacles emanating in all directions as far as the eye can see. 

Quite possibly, but I’m starting to think that Trump may finish his term before it happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mueller's report is going to be moderately bad for Trump and it just won't matter. His base will dig in, the Republican Party will continue what they've done since the 2016 convention, and he will be reelected.

If I was to bet, I would put money on all 4 of those predictions.

Share this post


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

Quite possibly, but I’m starting to think that Trump may finish his term before it happens. 

Mueller's report will have no bearing on his term.  He won't be impeached no matter what the report tells us that he has done.  We are talking about principled people here.  As long as he doesn't switch parties, he won't be impeached.  

His reelection depends on gas prices and/or the economy.  

Share this post


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

Mueller's report will have no bearing on his term.  He won't be impeached no matter what the report tells us that he has done.  We are talking about principled people here.  As long as he doesn't switch parties, he won't be impeached.  

His reelection depends on gas prices and/or the economy.  

I'm sure he'll be facing a primary challenge in '20. And it's probably going to be ugly.

Share this post


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

I'm sure he'll be facing a primary challenge in '20. And it's probably going to be ugly.

Negative Ghostrider. There is no republican party any more. Just the party of trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Mueller's report will have no bearing on his term.  He won't be impeached no matter what the report tells us that he has done.  We are talking about principled people here.  As long as he doesn't switch parties, he won't be impeached.  

His reelection depends on gas prices and/or the economy.  

Are there any questions about how the constitution has seemingly nothing in place to stop a President riding roughshod and doing exactly as he pleases??

Share this post


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

Are there any questions about how the constitution has seemingly nothing in place to stop a President riding roughshod and doing exactly as he pleases??

Trumps presidency is riding on a thread. He is threatening our global trade system, our longstanding military relationships, our longstanding cultural relationships and now he threatens the church with his hegemonic control of morality.

Granted, he blinked. But even Sessions felt the heat from his own church for violating church rules and principles. K Nielson (DHS) was chased from a Mexican restaurant and the pope is tweeting against Trump again.

Trump loves battle, but he’s opening up too many fronts, making too many enemies. He’s bad for business, and soon numerous  heavy hitters are going to realize that the economy is growing despite Trump, not because of him.

At that point, FOX will sing a different tune and it’ll be game over. Sabers are rattling, and the rats may be deserting. Think Cohen can’t make a mint selling some dirty laundry? His legal bills are gonna be stiff and he’s only got one thing worth selling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mad said:

Are there any questions about how the constitution has seemingly nothing in place to stop a President riding roughshod and doing exactly as he pleases??

The founding fathers assumed that Congress would have testitudunal fortitude to stand up and be an equal branch, though Washington warned us of the dangers of faction in his farewell address, which is worth reading. The US is no longer one country, we are at least two factions. 

Share this post


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

Trumps presidency is riding on a thread. He is threatening our global trade system, our longstanding military relationships, our longstanding cultural relationships and now he threatens the church with his hegemonic control of morality.

Granted, he blinked. But even Sessions felt the heat from his own church for violating church rules and principles. K Nielson (DHS) was chased from a Mexican restaurant and the pope is tweeting against Trump again.

Trump loves battle, but he’s opening up too many fronts, making too many enemies. He’s bad for business, and soon numerous  heavy hitters are going to realize that the economy is growing despite Trump, not because of him.

At that point, FOX will sing a different tune and it’ll be game over. Sabers are rattling, and the rats may be deserting. Think Cohen can’t make a mint selling some dirty laundry? His legal bills are gonna be stiff and he’s only got one thing worth selling.

 

This may be our only hope of neutering the Evil Rat Bastard!  The Repugnant-cans certainly aren't going to do anything about it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

This may be our only hope of neutering the Evil Rat Bastard!  The Repugnant-cans certainly aren't going to do anything about it....

If all else fails it could be done democratically.

Share this post


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

Trumps presidency is riding on a thread. He is threatening our global trade system, our longstanding military relationships, our longstanding cultural relationships and now he threatens the church with his hegemonic control of morality.

Granted, he blinked. But even Sessions felt the heat from his own church for violating church rules and principles. K Nielson (DHS) was chased from a Mexican restaurant and the pope is tweeting against Trump again.

Trump loves battle, but he’s opening up too many fronts, making too many enemies. He’s bad for business, and soon numerous  heavy hitters are going to realize that the economy is growing despite Trump, not because of him.

At that point, FOX will sing a different tune and it’ll be game over. Sabers are rattling, and the rats may be deserting. Think Cohen can’t make a mint selling some dirty laundry? His legal bills are gonna be stiff and he’s only got one thing worth selling.

I have hope you are correct, but the pessimist in me, or is that realist, fears that Trump is in for a second term, and with his cult following, I would not put it past him to sponsor an amendment to eliminate the two term limit.  Would be just our luck that his genetics are as great as his good doctor claims.  Of course I am usually wrong, hopefully this time also!  Need to find a home for the stray dog I took in and take off sailing!  Anyone want a dog?

Share this post


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

I have hope you are correct, but the pessimist in me, or is that realist, fears that Trump is in for a second term, and with his cult following, I would not put it past him to sponsor an amendment to eliminate the two term limit.  Would be just our luck that his genetics are as great as his good doctor claims.  Of course I am usually wrong, hopefully this time also!  Need to find a home for the stray dog I took in and take off sailing!  Anyone want a dog?

 

I HEAR YA!!  Might be a good time to get out of Dodge for a few years!!  The house is gone, and the apartment is easily closed up.  The cat died.  So just got to wait 2 more years for Medicare, and then a third to start collecting SSI.  I thought that I would want to keep on working indefinitely, but now retirement and travel outside the US has become increasingly of greater interest!!  Just have to convince the Missus to also retire, and join me....

Share this post


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

 

I HEAR YA!!  Might be a good time to get out of Dodge for a few years!!  The house is gone, and the apartment is easily closed up.  The cat died.  So just got to wait 2 more years for Medicare, and then a third to start collecting SSI.  I thought that I would want to keep on working indefinitely, but now retirement and travel outside the US has become increasingly of greater interest!!  Just have to convince the Missus to also retire, and join me....

I hate to burst your bubble, but instead of dreaming about the future, getting out the vote first might be a dandy idea.

No automatic alt text available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoo boy, they're going to take it all.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied Paul Manafort's motion to 
dismiss count 2 of his superseding indictment--money laundering--and 
the forfeiture allegation based on that charge. 

 

 

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied Paul Manafort's motion to dismiss count 2 of his superseding indictment--money laundering--and the forfeiture allegation based on that charge. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04516642220 

 
 




Link to court document: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kN7bUxJWRas1dI-g8vWN8UTQ49iBGmCX/view

Share this post


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

I hate to burst your bubble, but instead of dreaming about the future, getting out the vote first might be a dandy idea.

No automatic alt text available.

 

If they take away our Medicare and/or SSI, I will be among the pitchfork carrying mob heading for the White House.  They are not going to use my Retirement that I paid into the past 45 years to fund Space Warfare, or North Korea infrastructure building!!

Share this post


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

 

If they take away our Medicare and/or SSI, I will be among the pitchfork carrying mob heading for the White House.

A lot of people will be hopping mad. I almost hope they try it and put the idea to bed once and for all when they see the shit storm it causes.

Share this post


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

A lot of people will be hopping mad. I almost hope they try it and put the idea to bed once and for all when they see the shit storm it causes.

 

Glad I bought the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with large capacity magazine, before CT made them illegal!

Share this post


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

 

Glad I bought the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with large capacity magazine, before CT made them illegal!

LOL, Tom is going to need a sedative.

Share this post


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

I hate to burst your bubble, but instead of dreaming about the future, getting out the vote first might be a dandy idea.

No automatic alt text available.

Expect a full on Doggy Style campaign, to teach True Patriots that we cannot be truly free until we do away with health coverage, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  The Best Americans need none of those, and they want that money to which they are entitled.  They are not going to stop coming after it until they themselves are put in fear for their lives.  

Share this post


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

Expect a full on Doggy Style campaign, to teach True Patriots that we cannot be truly free until we do away with health coverage, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  The Best Americans need none of those, and they want that money to which they are entitled.  They are not going to stop coming after it until they themselves are put in fear for their lives.  

That's what they will get when they try to enact death panels for old people. Should be fun to watch.

Share this post


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

Hoo boy, they're going to take it all.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied Paul Manafort's motion to 
dismiss count 2 of his superseding indictment--money laundering--and 
the forfeiture allegation based on that charge. 

 

 

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied Paul Manafort's motion to dismiss count 2 of his superseding indictment--money laundering--and the forfeiture allegation based on that charge. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04516642220 

 
 




Link to court document: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kN7bUxJWRas1dI-g8vWN8UTQ49iBGmCX/view

Manafort, he was with the campaign for such a short period of time that nobody even knew who he was.  Hell, what campaign DOESN'T have the campaign chairman in the click click these days.  Happens all the time.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

If they take away our Medicare and/or SSI, I will be among the pitchfork carrying mob heading for the White House.  They are not going to use my Retirement that I paid into the past 45 years to fund Space Warfare, or North Korea infrastructure building!!

Sorry Billy, they already used it to remodel the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Sorry Billy, they already used it to remodel the Middle East.

 

Yeah, and that worked out just awesome, right?!!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller adds 4 more prosecutors to his team

 

Mueller has added 4 new lawyers from DOJ’s Criminal & National Security Divisions to the Russian troll farm case today. Typically, you staff up when a case is expanding either in complexity or number of defendants. 4 is a lot of prosecutors.

 
Typing the text of the tweet here: 
Mueller has added 4 new lawyers from DOJ's criminal & national security devision to the Russian Troll Farm Case today. Typically, you staff up when a case is expanding in complexity or number of defendants. 4 is a lot of prosecutors.
 
 

Share this post


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

Mueller adds 4 more prosecutors to his team

 

Mueller has added 4 new lawyers from DOJ’s Criminal & National Security Divisions to the Russian troll farm case today. Typically, you staff up when a case is expanding either in complexity or number of defendants. 4 is a lot of prosecutors.

 
Typing the text of the tweet here: 
Mueller has added 4 new lawyers from DOJ's criminal & national security devision to the Russian Troll Farm Case today. Typically, you staff up when a case is expanding in complexity or number of defendants. 4 is a lot of prosecutors.
 
 

That case is a nothing burger because the prosecutor did not want to go to trial on the day after the indictment.  Nothing to see here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That case is a nothing burger because the prosecutor did not want to go to trial on the day after the indictment.  Nothing to see here.  

A nothing burger that needs four more prosecutors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Glad I bought the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with large capacity magazine, before CT made them illegal!

I think this situation may be beyond what the 2A is capable of anymore, though there is a slightly intriguing thought about that possibly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller crossing T's dotting I's and screwing it down tight.

Mueller seeks to bar Manafort from tying charges to Trump campaign role

Source: Politico

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is seeking to prevent the defense for Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, from arguing to jurors that he was targeted for prosecution because of his role in Donald Trump’s presidential bid. 

In a court filing on Friday, prosecutors asked a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, to bar any selective prosecution claims during Manafort’s looming trial on tax evasion, bank fraud and other charges. 

“Manafort should … be precluded from arguing that he has been singled out for prosecution because of his position in the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump, or otherwise asserting that he has been selectively prosecuted by the Special Counsel’s Office,” Mueller’s team wrote. 

Prosecutors noted that Manafort never filed a legal motion asking for the case to be dismissed on selective-prosecution grounds.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/22/robert-mueller-paul-manafort-trump-campaign-665898 
 

Mueller is attempting to avoid jury nullification by preempting any attempt to introduce issues that would take the jury's focus off Manafort's alleged crimes. 

From Mueller’s filing: 

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-28ed-dd88-af77-faef029d0000 

2. Under the foregoing principles, Manafort should be precluded from presenting to the 
jury evidence or argument concerning several of the issues mentioned above that were raised in 
his pretrial motions and that, if reasserted at trial, would serve primarily as a basis for jury 
nullification or otherwise confuse the jury
. 

To begin with, Manafort should be barred from arguing or suggesting in questions to witnesses that the conduct charged in the superseding indictment does not relate to the Special Counsel’s mandate. Manafort’s argument on that point forms the basis for a motion to dismiss that has been fully briefed and remains pending before the Court. See Docs. 30, 32, and 40. Regardless of how the Court decides that motion, the boundaries of the Special Counsel’s authority are irrelevant to the jury’s consideration of whether the evidence proves the elements of the tax, foreign account, and bank fraud offenses. And even if (contrary to fact) such an argument had some probative value, that value would be substantially outweighed by the risk of misleading or confusing the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Manafort should also be precluded from arguing that he has been singled out for prosecution because of his position in the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump, or otherwise asserting that he has been selectively prosecuted by the Special Counsel’s Office. Manafort elected not to make that claim in a pretrial motion.* Courts have consistently held that claims of selective (or vindictive) prosecution must be presented to the court before trial and cannot be argued to the jury. 

SNIP 

In a similar vein, the Court should bar Manafort from incorrectly suggesting—as he has in pretrial filings, see Doc. 30-1 at 16, 23-24; Doc. 40 at 13—that prosecutors in this case have resurrected charges that the Department of Justice previously investigated but declined to prosecute or determined not to be meritorious. Any such argument would be misleading to the extent it suggests that the Department ceased investigating Manafort before the appointment of the Special Counsel and had decided not to bring charges against him. I 

 

Share this post


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

I think this situation may be beyond what the 2A is capable of anymore, though there is a slightly intriguing thought about that possibly. 

 

Intriguing, really?  I find the situation abominable, not intriguing?  Nevertheless, I will be prepared to defend my family, should it ever come to that!  The fact that I must even contemplate that situation is a horrible thought!  But, how long until Civil Liberties deteriorate to the point where taxpaying American citizens are some day treated like the immigrants at our borders, who are merely seeking "Legal Asylumn"?  Maybe they will take our children away, if we don't toe the party line?  Trump is closer to Mussolini, Hitler and that crazy German Lord just before the first WW; whose name escapes me at the moment.....  than he is close to any previous POTUS...
 

Share this post


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

Mueller crossing T's dotting I's and screwing it down tight.

Mueller seeks to bar Manafort from tying charges to Trump campaign role

Source: Politico

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is seeking to prevent the defense for Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, from arguing to jurors that he was targeted for prosecution because of his role in Donald Trump’s presidential bid. 

In a court filing on Friday, prosecutors asked a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, to bar any selective prosecution claims during Manafort’s looming trial on tax evasion, bank fraud and other charges. 

“Manafort should … be precluded from arguing that he has been singled out for prosecution because of his position in the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump, or otherwise asserting that he has been selectively prosecuted by the Special Counsel’s Office,” Mueller’s team wrote. 

Prosecutors noted that Manafort never filed a legal motion asking for the case to be dismissed on selective-prosecution grounds.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/22/robert-mueller-paul-manafort-trump-campaign-665898 
 

Mueller is attempting to avoid jury nullification by preempting any attempt to introduce issues that would take the jury's focus off Manafort's alleged crimes. 

From Mueller’s filing: 

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-28ed-dd88-af77-faef029d0000 

2. Under the foregoing principles, Manafort should be precluded from presenting to the 
jury evidence or argument concerning several of the issues mentioned above that were raised in 
his pretrial motions and that, if reasserted at trial, would serve primarily as a basis for jury 
nullification or otherwise confuse the jury
. 

To begin with, Manafort should be barred from arguing or suggesting in questions to witnesses that the conduct charged in the superseding indictment does not relate to the Special Counsel’s mandate. Manafort’s argument on that point forms the basis for a motion to dismiss that has been fully briefed and remains pending before the Court. See Docs. 30, 32, and 40. Regardless of how the Court decides that motion, the boundaries of the Special Counsel’s authority are irrelevant to the jury’s consideration of whether the evidence proves the elements of the tax, foreign account, and bank fraud offenses. And even if (contrary to fact) such an argument had some probative value, that value would be substantially outweighed by the risk of misleading or confusing the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Manafort should also be precluded from arguing that he has been singled out for prosecution because of his position in the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump, or otherwise asserting that he has been selectively prosecuted by the Special Counsel’s Office. Manafort elected not to make that claim in a pretrial motion.* Courts have consistently held that claims of selective (or vindictive) prosecution must be presented to the court before trial and cannot be argued to the jury. 

SNIP 

In a similar vein, the Court should bar Manafort from incorrectly suggesting—as he has in pretrial filings, see Doc. 30-1 at 16, 23-24; Doc. 40 at 13—that prosecutors in this case have resurrected charges that the Department of Justice previously investigated but declined to prosecute or determined not to be meritorious. Any such argument would be misleading to the extent it suggests that the Department ceased investigating Manafort before the appointment of the Special Counsel and had decided not to bring charges against him. I 

 

I was waiting for this to spring from one or both sides. 

Share this post


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

 

Intriguing, really?  I find the situation abominable, not intriguing?  Nevertheless, I will be prepared to defend my family, should it ever come to that!  The fact that I must even contemplate that situation is a horrible thought!  But, how long until Civil Liberties deteriorate to the point where taxpaying American citizens are some day treated like the immigrants at our borders, who are merely seeking "Legal Asylumn"?  Maybe they will take our children away, if we don't toe the party line?  Trump is closer to Mussolini, Hitler and that crazy German Lord just before the first WW; whose name escapes me at the moment.....  than he is close to any previous POTUS...
 

Sorry, I should have used the purple sarcasm font. Is there an extra detail for irony?

could we see the NRA take a similar view towards the Trump administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mad said:

Are there any questions about how the constitution has seemingly nothing in place to stop a President riding roughshod and doing exactly as he pleases??

Practically speaking, the constitution allows a POTUS to do anything Congress doesn't want to stop.

 The history of this is quite clear, Lincoln positively shredded the document during the civil war, jailing dissenters to a degree even Putin would envy. Wilson did about the same thing. Roosevelt put people with Japanese ancestry in concentration camps. Now, before you say "Well..that was war time!", think about Ike making the Communist Party illegal in peace time. We were not at war when Adams banned criticism of the POTUS either. And we all know Obama was allowed to erect FEMA death camps, do we not? 

 Judicial review? There is nothing in the Constitution about Judicial review at all, let alone the ability to decide if a POTUS, the head of a different branch, did something illegal. The original document assumed Congress would interpret the laws they were supposed to write, a notion that was deemed unwise very quickly, yes, but never enshrined in the document, and our custom of Judicial review has always been a limited one. This is actually as it should be, as we do not want the most powerful branch to be a panel of life-time political appointees, which would put us roughly on a par with Iran. 

 I can understand the question in a Brit's mind though. In your system the top dog is always selected by "congress" and "congress"
can pull a no-confidence vote on them at any time. Call elections any time too, IIRC. In our system we have to live with whateverthefuk Congress we elected for at least two years. The only good news in that is the current Congress must accept the blame for the whole two years too. The only choice they have is impeachment, a very complicated undertaking, one that, at best, puts Trump's VP in his stead. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the FBI had ALL of Hillary's emails....

"The New York agents described it as the “entire file” of all Hillary Clinton emails from 2006 until 2016, including the BlackBerry messages that Comey himself had referred to as “the golden emails”...

...The case agent himself recognized that the FBI had 10 times the number of Clinton emails that the director had reported on the record, and they had the significant BlackBerry messages as well. He could not believe someone in New York had not called him to get the hard drive.

Extremely concerned, the case agent went to the U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York. An assistant United States attorney told the inspector general the agent believed “somebody was not acting appropriately, somebody was trying to bury this.” The attorneys were concerned the agent might “act out.”

“Act out” means blow the whistle.

Drip...drip...drip...

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/fbi-ignored-golden-emails-and-abedin-messages/

Share this post


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

What if the FBI had ALL of Hillary's emails....

"The New York agents described it as the “entire file” of all Hillary Clinton emails from 2006 until 2016, including the BlackBerry messages that Comey himself had referred to as “the golden emails”...

...The case agent himself recognized that the FBI had 10 times the number of Clinton emails that the director had reported on the record, and they had the significant BlackBerry messages as well. He could not believe someone in New York had not called him to get the hard drive.

Extremely concerned, the case agent went to the U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York. An assistant United States attorney told the inspector general the agent believed “somebody was not acting appropriately, somebody was trying to bury this.” The attorneys were concerned the agent might “act out.”

“Act out” means blow the whistle.

Drip...drip...drip...

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/fbi-ignored-golden-emails-and-abedin-messages/

Hillary used email... oh, and a blackberry too!

Share this post


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

What if the FBI had ALL of Hillary's emails....

"The New York agents described it as the “entire file” of all Hillary Clinton emails from 2006 until 2016, including the BlackBerry messages that Comey himself had referred to as “the golden emails”...

...The case agent himself recognized that the FBI had 10 times the number of Clinton emails that the director had reported on the record, and they had the significant BlackBerry messages as well. He could not believe someone in New York had not called him to get the hard drive.

Extremely concerned, the case agent went to the U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York. An assistant United States attorney told the inspector general the agent believed “somebody was not acting appropriately, somebody was trying to bury this.” The attorneys were concerned the agent might “act out.”

“Act out” means blow the whistle.

Drip...drip...drip...

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/fbi-ignored-golden-emails-and-abedin-messages/

Sheesh, the Daily Cholera is now saying 700,000 email? Do they even realize that a single person cannot even process that many emails? I think one year I handled 18,000 email and I was one busy motherfucker. No lunch, no breaks, 12 hour days. 2700 email a day? No. Absolutely not.  Better writers, please.

Share this post


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

Sheesh, the Daily Cholera is now saying 700,000 email? Do they even realize that a single person cannot even process that many emails? I think one year I handled 18,000 email and I was one busy motherfucker. No lunch, no breaks, 12 hour days. 2700 email a day? No. Absolutely not.  Better writers, please.

700,000 over ten years = 70,000 per year

70,000 over 365 days = 192 per day

if sec clinton knew how to use a computer, she could have easily doubled that

Share this post


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

700,000 over ten years = 70,000 per year

70,000 over 365 days = 192 per day

if sec clinton knew how to use a computer, she could have easily doubled that

Can you imagine! She used email!

Share this post


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

700,000 over ten years = 70,000 per year

70,000 over 365 days = 192 per day

if sec clinton knew how to use a computer, she could have easily doubled that

There are 262 working days in the federal government. 267 email per day (thanks for the correction) Hillary Clinton was Secretary for four years, where did the other six years come from? If you're going to say as a Senator, those emails are protected, and if you want them, you will have to give up Republican email as well, something that would not happen in your lifetime.

Edit to Add: 70,000 is four times what I handled, and I challenge that on the rules of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites