Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 21.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

On 1/16/2019 at 12:57 PM, hermetic said:

court transcript:

THE COURT: All right. I just want to ask a couple of questions. This is directed to either government counsel or defense counsel. I made a statement about Mr. Flynn acting as a foreign agent while serving in the White House. I may have misspoken. Does that need to be corrected?

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor, that would be correct, which is that the conduct ended, I believe, in mid-November 2016.

THE COURT: All right. That’s what I thought, and I felt terrible about that. I just want the record clear on that. You agree with that, Counsel?

MR. KELNER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I also asked about — and this is very important — I also asked about the Special Counsel’s Office. I also asked questions about the Special Counsel and the — and other potential offenses for the purpose of understanding the benefit, if any, that Mr. Flynn has received in the plea deal. I wasn’t suggesting he’s committed treason. I wasn’t suggesting he committed violations. I was just curious as to whether or not he could have been charged, and I gave a few examples.

[snip]

THE COURT: And I said early on, Don’t read too much into the questions I ask. But I’m not suggesting he committed treason. I just asked a legitimate question.

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor. And that affords us an opportunity to clarify something on our end which is, with respect to treason, I said I wanted to make sure I had the statute in front of me. The government has no reason to believe that the defendant committed treason; not just at the time, but having proffered with the defendant and spoken with him through 19 interviews, no concerns with respect to the issue of treason.

So you did, great.

Now point out the part where he apologizes for saying that Mr Flynn was a traitor........ Judge Sullivan (The Court) backs away from saying that Flynn could be charged with treason, but does not apologize for that.

BTW with regard to your timeline you're so proud of, notice the date quoted..... mid-november 2016, not a year and a half earlier............

I suggest you're grabbing at straws. Only natural when you don't-support such a sleazy trainwreck as the Trump Administration

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 12:57 PM, hermetic said:

court transcript:

THE COURT: All right. I just want to ask a couple of questions. This is directed to either government counsel or defense counsel. I made a statement about Mr. Flynn acting as a foreign agent while serving in the White House. I may have misspoken. Does that need to be corrected?

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor, that would be correct, which is that the conduct ended, I believe, in mid-November 2016.

THE COURT: All right. That’s what I thought, and I felt terrible about that. I just want the record clear on that. You agree with that, Counsel?

MR. KELNER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I also asked about — and this is very important — I also asked about the Special Counsel’s Office. I also asked questions about the Special Counsel and the — and other potential offenses for the purpose of understanding the benefit, if any, that Mr. Flynn has received in the plea deal. I wasn’t suggesting he’s committed treason. I wasn’t suggesting he committed violations. I was just curious as to whether or not he could have been charged, and I gave a few examples.

[snip]

THE COURT: And I said early on, Don’t read too much into the questions I ask. But I’m not suggesting he committed treason. I just asked a legitimate question.

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor. And that affords us an opportunity to clarify something on our end which is, with respect to treason, I said I wanted to make sure I had the statute in front of me. The government has no reason to believe that the defendant committed treason; not just at the time, but having proffered with the defendant and spoken with him through 19 interviews, no concerns with respect to the issue of treason.

So you did, great.

Now point out the part where he apologizes for saying that Mr Flynn was a traitor........ Judge Sullivan (The Court) backs away from saying that Flynn could be charged with treason, but does not apologize for that.

BTW with regard to your timeline you're so proud of, notice the date quoted..... mid-november 2016, not a year and a half earlier............

I suggest you're grabbing at straws. Only natural when you don't-support such a sleazy trainwreck as the Trump Administration

holy shit, here we go again with the comedy.  turkey is not russia - look at a map.  that's two posts in a row

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

holy shit, here we go again with the comedy.  turkey is not russia - look at a map.  that's two posts in a row

....... 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, and this has never happened before, I'm craving a turkey Reuben, with pastrami, grilled onion, Russian dressing, Swiss cheese, on Kurdish rye bread, slightly toasted.... Maybe some pickle juice drizzled just before it gets closed up....

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes 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

No.

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

What you have given is your own opinion which by your own standard is irrelevant.

Incorrect. I have laid out the facts. Flynn swore to negotiating with the Russians on foreign policy in conflict with Obama's current policies. He did so without authorisation from the federal government. That is a breach of the Logan Act. Which makes it a crime. 

 

9 hours ago, Dog said:

Whether the offense you imagine would amount to a crime would be down to a jury but that's not going to happen so it will have to exist only in your imagination.

A jury is not necessary to know he committed the crime, merely to punish him for it. 

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

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

 

No.

 

Really?

 

42 minutes ago, hermetic said:

(Prosecutor): Yes, Your Honor, that would be correct, which is that the conduct ended, I believe, in mid-November 2016.

 

This is really really stupid, even by your new lower standards

BTW hermetic thanks for providing the transcript

-DSK

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

Incorrect. I have laid out the facts. Flynn swore to negotiating with the Russians on foreign policy in conflict with Obama's current policies. He did so without authorisation from the federal government. That is a breach of the Logan Act. Which makes it a crime. 

 

A jury is not necessary to know he committed the crime, merely to punish him for it. 

Take it up with Mueller.

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

 

Really?

 

 

This is really really stupid, even by your new lower standards

BTW hermetic thanks for providing the transcript

-DSK

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

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

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Why does the court say "the conduct ended in mid-November 2016" which means that it was continuing before that?

Never mind.

Have fun in doggy Trump-lover fantasy-land

-DSK

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

Neither has he embraced it, nor will he.

Of course he has.  I stated earlier, he is using it as leverage forcing Flynn to cooperate. My reasoning and how I would use it in his place is completely in line by Mueller's actions.

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

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

In September of 2016, after the election and while he was a member of the transition team, Flynn was in talks with the Turkish government about his getting paid to get the US to return Fatullah Gulen for his suspected role in a 2015 aborted coup. One month after that coup attempt was when Turkey first hired him.

These contacts were not disclosed and are essentially why FARA laws are on the books.

He also didn’t report contacts he had with Russia during this period. Both on required federal disclosures and during in-person interviews.

Splitting hairs is fine, but the guy was dirty, according to US laws.

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

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

In September of 2016, after the election and while he was a member of the transition team, Flynn was in talks with the Turkish government about his getting paid to get the US to return Fatullah Gulen for his suspected role in a 2015 aborted coup. One month after that coup attempt was when Turkey first hired him.

These contacts were not disclosed and are essentially why FARA laws are on the books.

He also didn’t report contacts he had with Russia during this period. Both on required federal disclosures and during in-person interviews.

Splitting hairs is fine, but the guy was dirty, according to US laws.

 

Careful there, the Trumpettes don't like these harsh facts raining all over their fantasy land.

Dog has gone far past splitting hairs into outright lying, that's the only way he can sustain the vision. Not sure what went wrong with H, he seemed to have a good bit of common sense until a short while ago.

-DSK

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

Dog has gone far past splitting hairs into outright lying, that's the only way he can sustain the vision. Not sure what went wrong with H, he seemed to have a good bit of common sense until a short while ago.

It's the desperation. Folks like Dog are used to defending the party from uncomfortable actions by obfuscation, deflection, and distraction. The establishment politicians know this is how the game is played and so tend to provide plausible deniability. Trump and his team are amateurs, so when they do something stupid and/or illegal, they go all in and give Dog very little to work with. 

Dog's left with inane stupidity as his only option. 

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

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Giving old Tom a run for the most pedantic asshole on the forum I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Giving old Tom a run for the most pedantic asshole on the forum I see.

Next he'll be dragging in "You can keep your doctor" just for shits and giggles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can things continue before they happen? What is the proper term for that?..... I'm pretty good at words, but this one has me stymied....

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

Dude...When Rudy denies that he ever said there was no collusion he is clearly talking about himself. He's not saying the Trump never said there was no collusion.

Obviously,  neither Trump or Rudy knows what every member of the campaign was up to all the time. Trump made an assertion he can't know to be true. Rudy was more careful and refrained from making an assertion he can't know to be true.

 

 (and I'm not a Dude)

Giuliani... The Washington Post notes, that simply isn’t true:

In December 2017, Trump adamantly told reporters outside the White House that there was “absolutely no collusion, that has been proven.”

On Twitter, the president has been even more passionate when defending himself and his campaign, repeatedly using words such as “hoax” and “witch hunt” to describe the accusations and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s ongoing probe.

Just last month, the president tweeted, “‘Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun…No Collusion.'”

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kirwan said:
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Rudy's statement had to do with what he had or had not said earlier. It neither agrees with or contradicts anything Trump has said as far as I can tell.

Goleee, you use your mouth purtier than a 20 dollar whore!  Just keep twisting!

Would you please punctuate this sentence so it reads correctly?"

John where James had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

The Mutt sounds almost like a lawyer there.

All it needs is a few "whereas" and "hereinafter referred to as" and it would be very convincing.

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

 Just last month, the president tweeted, “‘Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun…No Collusion.'”

There's a gun for doing smocking?

image.png.bac80d15c3c54f588af8a634758c066d.png

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

There's a gun for doing smocking?

image.png.bac80d15c3c54f588af8a634758c066d.png

It was a clever dodge for him to avoid being caught in (another) lie.  Giuliani thunk it up.  Covfefe

Link to post
Share on other sites

The spelling  mistake gang strikes again,  colloquially known as the Bad Grammar gang,  their credo: "No your honor,  that's what I said, not what I meant."

When used in conjunction with their widely known "Baffle em with bullshit"  approach it proved  a good ruse until Detectives Schumer and Pelosi got appointed to the beat, bullshitters themselves, they could spot an amateur a mile away. And that folks is were things started to go downhill.

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

It's a presequel.

No.... I think that might be close.

 I have the smartest man that I know who's still alive, cogitating upon this question. He was a bit flummoxed that he didn't have a ready answer for me.

 (Harvard law 1948)

 (I hate to call in a Cantab, when all my old guard have been Yale, but sadly, most of the Eli's have crossed the barr..... so to speak)

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

 (and I'm not a Dude)

Giuliani... The Washington Post notes, that simply isn’t true:

In December 2017, Trump adamantly told reporters outside the White House that there was “absolutely no collusion, that has been proven.”

On Twitter, the president has been even more passionate when defending himself and his campaign, repeatedly using words such as “hoax” and “witch hunt” to describe the accusations and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s ongoing probe.

Just last month, the president tweeted, “‘Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun…No Collusion.'”

Dude...Rudy didn't deny that Turmp said it . He denied that he had said it himself.

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

No.... I think that might be close.

 I have the smartest man that I know who's still alive, cogitating upon this question. He was a bit flummoxed that he didn't have a ready answer for me.

 (Harvard law 1948)

 (I hate to call in a Cantab, when all my old guard have been Yale, but sadly, most of the Eli's have crossed the barr..... so to speak)

You make me feel young again.  Thank you.

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

Dude...Rudy didn't deny that Turmp said it . He denied that he had said it himself.

Rudy is careful to not deny there was collusion with the Russians and the campaign, which is contradictory to President Trump's many absolute statements there was none.  "If there was collusion, it was a long time ago" is not the same as "NO COLLUSION!"

I believe Mr. Guiliani is smarter than the Pride of New York and sees where this is headed.

He is trying to salvage a shred of credibility.

President Trump continues to believe himself smarter and craftier than everyone, and will attempt to bluff, bluster, and bullshit his way through.

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

Dude...

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.

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

President Trump continues to believe himself smarter and craftier than everyone, and will attempt to bluff, bluster, and bullshit his way through.

Which explains why Dog and Jack look up to him. They see a more successful version of themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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 

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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

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.

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”?

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?

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. 

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.

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)

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!!

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

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

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.

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.

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/ 

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.

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

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?

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
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
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

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

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.

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
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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites