Russiagate

[billvon 2,400]

So the Manafort sentencing documents are out - all 875 pages of them.  Some tidbits:

"Given the breadth of Manafort’s criminal activity, the government has not located a comparable case with the unique array of crimes and aggravating factors."  In other words, Trump's campaign chairman is historically criminal.  Unprecedented.

His long run of crime “presents many aggravating sentencing factors” and had “no warranted mitigating factors.”  He tried his best to hide them, but many were “committed while under a spotlight due to his work as the campaign chairman.”

They are recommending a minimum of 46 years in jail.  Maybe with good behavior he could be out in 20, just in time for his 90th birthday.

[BillyVance 34]

On 2/23/2019 at 9:38 PM, billvon said:

So the Manafort sentencing documents are out - all 875 pages of them.  Some tidbits:

"Given the breadth of Manafort’s criminal activity, the government has not located a comparable case with the unique array of crimes and aggravating factors."  In other words, Trump's campaign chairman is historically criminal.  Unprecedented.

His long run of crime “presents many aggravating sentencing factors” and had “no warranted mitigating factors.”  He tried his best to hide them, but many were “committed while under a spotlight due to his work as the campaign chairman.”

They are recommending a minimum of 46 years in jail.  Maybe with good behavior he could be out in 20, just in time for his 90th birthday.

Well yeah but... specifically what did Manafort do that alludes to collusion with Russia in the election? That's the point. It's been 2+ years and we have yet to see concrete evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

I'm going with Hillary and the DNC colluding with Russia and falling flat at the polls anyway. Man, they had the odds stacked in their favor. LOL

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

That's funny. The Mueller investigation started in May. Not yet 2 years.

 

He's gotten several convictions and guilty pleas involving people lying about contact with Russia. The judge basically called Flynn a traitor. Not too bad for a 'witch hunt'. How many convictions did the investigations of HRC's emails & Benghazi end up with?

What indications do you have of HRC & the Dems 'colluding' with Russia? HRC took a pretty hard line on Russian shenannigans, when she was SecState. Putin hates her. 
OTOH, he's pretty clearly got Trump under his thumb. Money & sex, most likely. 

Trump was telling him publicly to hack & release more of HRC's emails during the campaign. Trump also stated he wanted to lift the sanctions against Russia. The ones HRC was instrumental in implementing. 

[DJL 232]

11 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

OTOH, he's pretty clearly got Trump under his thumb. Money & sex, most likely. 

I disagree.  When Trump was campaigning his money source and future assets were very much Russian based.  He didn't want to disclose that and he didn't want to say anything that would hurt those deals so he took a very forgiving stance.  BUT remember that he never thought he would win.  ALSO since he had so many Russian based relationships his contemporary staff and contacts also had ties to Russia.  Trump being who he is slept with dogs and those dogs are now being exposed for what they are and for what they did.  I do think that Trump is compromised because of these relationships but I don't think Putin has anything on him that we don't know about.  I just think that because Trump lies so easily that it's in his nature to lie about and protect his family assets.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

It's been 2+ years and we have yet to see concrete evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

I'm going with Hillary and the DNC colluding with Russia and falling flat at the polls anyway.

This is the typical "brilliance" of a Trump supporter.

2 years of investigation with guilty plea, indictment, felony charges etc etc and the answer is "so what?"

But, Hillary must be guilty of something, doesn't matter what any investigation to the contrary says. Doesn't matter if there is any evidence.

Amazingly roughly a third of the US exhibits this level of "brilliance". Maybe spend a bit less money killing people and a bit more money educating people.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

42 minutes ago, DJL said:

I disagree.  When Trump was campaigning his money source and future assets were very much Russian based.  He didn't want to disclose that and he didn't want to say anything that would hurt those deals so he took a very forgiving stance.  BUT remember that he never thought he would win.  ALSO since he had so many Russian based relationships his contemporary staff and contacts also had ties to Russia.  Trump being who he is slept with dogs and those dogs are now being exposed for what they are and for what they did.  I do think that Trump is compromised because of these relationships but I don't think Putin has anything on him that we don't know about.  I just think that because Trump lies so easily that it's in his nature to lie about and protect his family assets.

Maybe.

But I don't think so.

Remember, one of the first FBI investigations was to see if Trump was 'compromised'. 

 

Trump has had shady dealings, including with the mob (US based) for a long time. Getting stuff built in New York City & Atlantic City doesn't happen without them. 

There's some pretty strong indications that Trump has been laundering money for the Russian mob for a while. THAT doesn't happen without Putin knowing. The Russian government (Putin), the mob and the 'kleptocrats' who really run the country are all intertwined. 

Also, Trump has some pretty strong sexual appetites. The "pee tape" is one example. I would bet heavily that Putin and his cohorts have more tapes than that. 

 

And don't ever forget that Putin is 'old school' KGB. They were absolute geniuses at compromising people. Getting 'the goods' on a rich, famous & powerful American "business tycoon" would be a huge victory. 

Look at Trumps behavior with the Russians back in early 17. Look at his behavior at the summit meetings where Putin was present. Look at the joint press conference he & Putin had. 
Every interaction is basically showing that Trump is under Putin's thumb. 

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

Well yeah but... specifically what did Manafort do that alludes to collusion with Russia in the election?

Manafort lied about his connections to the Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik, who has strong connections to Russian intelligence.  Manafort met with Kilimnik several times during the campaign to trade intelligence and offer favors.

Then, even after he was indicted, he conspired with Kilimnik to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses.  There's simply no doubt that he colluded with Russia, sorry.

Quote

we have yet to see concrete evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Trump Jr met with a Russian agent to try to get dirt on Hillary for Trump's campaign - and then lied about it.  That's pretty much the definition of collusion.

Trump's lawyer and family contacted Russians in 2015 and 2016 to try to get the goahead on several Trump Russian projects, including one that would provide Putin with a free penthouse - hoping Russia would return the favor by attacking the Democrats for them.  Trump denied that he had any deals at all with Russia, regularly and vehemently.

Trump Jr met with the governor of Russia's central state bank at an NRA meeting in 2016.  Senior Trump aide Rick Dearborn set it up with the goal of creating a secret backchannel between Russia and the campaign.

There is no longer any doubt that Trump, his campaign and his administration colluded with Russia.  They have already indicted, charged and convicted several people for this.  The question for prosecutors is now whether they can go after Trump himself for his role in the collusion.

Note that apparently Trump thinks if he repeats "NO COLLUSION" over and over again people will begin to believe it.  Looks like you fell for it.

[billvon 2,400]

46 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Amazingly roughly a third of the US exhibits this level of "brilliance". Maybe spend a bit less money killing people and a bit more money educating people.

And lose Trump his base?  There's a reason that the Department of Education has floundered under Trump - he doesn't want to lose voters.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Maybe.

But I don't think so.

Remember, one of the first FBI investigations was to see if Trump was 'compromised'. 

I guess my take is that I don't think Donald Trump was any more personally involved in any Trump organization business than he is in being "The President".  I do await the final tally from Mueller but I wouldn't be surprised if the hatchet falls on those working on his behalf rather than at his direction.  That's an important distinction because while he may pressure employees to do illegal things on his behalf he's (so far) done a very good job at having no record of him to actually directing that action.  We do know he has no problem throwing his most loyal people under the bus.

Edit: As for Putin having dirt on Trump and those situations in which Trump was cowering in front of Putin.  Yes, very telling of something.

Edited February 25, 2019 by DJL

[pchapman 261]

21 minutes ago, DJL said:

 That's an important distinction because while he may pressure employees to do illegal things on his behalf he's (so far) done a very good job at having no record of him to actually directing that action.

In a related note, I'm still hazy on how much collusion (for the purposes of committing an illegal act) is needed to count as a real crime, to what degree things can be implied without full 2-way communication.

Sort of like the issues with King Henry II's, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!" (which led to the priest's murder on the King's behalf), or some Mafia-style statement, "I would be most grateful to anyone who can solve the situation with that guy .... permanently."

[ryoder 1,384]

16 minutes ago, pchapman said:

In a related note, I'm still hazy on how much collusion (for the purposes of committing an illegal act) is needed to count as a real crime, to what degree things can be implied without full 2-way communication.

Sort of like the issues with King Henry II's, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!" (which led to the priest's murder on the King's behalf), or some Mafia-style statement, "I would be most grateful to anyone who can solve the situation with that guy .... permanently."

I have a good friend who was in USAF for 6 years, doing IT support for intelligence activities.

He gave me an extensive rundown on how officers subtly give orders to do shady things, while avoiding using language that would enable an enlisted man being able to give an affirmative answer to the question: 

"Did the officer give you a direct order to do that?"

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

6 hours ago, pchapman said:

In a related note, I'm still hazy on how much collusion (for the purposes of committing an illegal act) is needed to count as a real crime, to what degree things can be implied without full 2-way communication.

Sort of like the issues with King Henry II's, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!" (which led to the priest's murder on the King's behalf), or some Mafia-style statement, "I would be most grateful to anyone who can solve the situation with that guy .... permanently."

That's a pretty fuzzy line. 

Prosecutors are used to it. As screwed up as the RICO statutes are, they are in place to address exactly this sort of thing.

A few of the questions that need to be answered:

Was he aware of the actions before they took place? Did he do anything to stop them?
Was he aware of the actions when they took place?
Was he aware of the actions after they took place? Did he express any displeasure about it (did he get mad that they happened)?

Did he take any action to ensure that sort of thing didn't happen in the future?

Have 'bad stuff' happen enough times, where the accused 'boss' is aware of it and does nothing to stop it or keep it from happening again and you have a case. 

[kallend 1,623]

18 hours ago, pchapman said:

In a related note, I'm still hazy on how much collusion (for the purposes of committing an illegal act) is needed to count as a real crime, to what degree things can be implied without full 2-way communication.

Sort of like the issues with King Henry II's, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!" (which led to the priest's murder on the King's behalf).

 Henry II publicly confessed  and then allowed each bishop present to give him five blows from a rod, then each of the 80 monks of Canturbury gave the king three blows (12 July 1174).

Would make a nice precedent for the current situation.

[kallend 1,623]

In January, Trump told the New York Times that he "was never involved with the security" clearances regarding Kushner, adding: "I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually. But I don't want to get involved in that stuff."

According to the NYT -- and later reporting in which the Washington Post confirmed much of the Times report -- Trump was not telling the truth in that interview . Not only did he get "involved" with Kushner's security clearance, he ordered Kelly to give Kushner the top-secret clearance over the objections of the then-chief of staff and the intelligence community.

[DJL 232]

15 minutes ago, kallend said:

In January, Trump told the New York Times that he "was never involved with the security" clearances regarding Kushner, adding: "I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually. But I don't want to get involved in that stuff."

According to the NYT -- and later reporting in which the Washington Post confirmed much of the Times report -- Trump was not telling the truth in that interview . Not only did he get "involved" with Kushner's security clearance, he ordered Kelly to give Kushner the top-secret clearance over the objections of the then-chief of staff and the intelligence community.

The new normal, Trump lies about everything.

[Phil1111 910]

Former Trump lawyer calls Mueller an 'American hero'

Ty Cobb, who represented the White House amid Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into Russian election meddling, called the special counsel an “American hero” in a recent interview.

So he is like John McCain,Audie Murphy, etc. Except trump hasn't slighted Audie Murphy, yet.

[billvon 2,400]

Latest excuse from Trump for collusion - he was just joking when he asked Russia to hack the DNC and release the emails, with a promise of a reward.

Too bad Nixon never thought of that.  "I was just JOKING when I told Cox he was fired!  Not my fault he took it seriously.  Jesus Christ, it's like you can't tell a joke about something without it becoming a Federal case."

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

10 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

So he is like John McCain,Audie Murphy, etc. Except trump hasn't slighted Audie Murphy, yet.

I'm gonna guess that Trump has no clue that Audie Murphy was anything other than an actor.

 

On a different note, the House has a panel investigating Trump on obstruction of justice, corruption in regards to campaign finances, misuse of office for personal gain and abuse of power in his attacks on the media, judiciary and law enforcement.

 

So how does Trump respond?  

 

 "I cooperate all the time with everybody." He also reiterated his position that there was "no collusion. It's all a hoax."

 

Sanders said something similar:

"Today, Chairman Nadler opened up a disgraceful and abusive investigation into tired, false allegations already investigated by the Special Counsel and committees in both Chambers of Congress. Chairman Nadler and his fellow Democrats have embarked on this fishing expedition because they are terrified that their two-year false narrative of 'Russia collusion' is crumbling."

 

That's funny. The Judiciary Committee panel has not mentioned "Russian Collusion". Yet the Trump camp is denying it.

 

The top R on the committee has said:

"...After recklessly prejudging the president for obstruction," Collins said. "Chairman Nadler is pursuing evidence to back up his conclusion because, as he admits, 'we don't have the facts yet.' "

 

Oh my God!!!! Pursuing evidence to back up his accusations!?!?

 

How can he possibly think that is appropriate? 
Of course, the Rs had been 'prejudging' someone for various crimes and misbehaviors for quite some time. They just didn't bother with that pesky 'pursuing evidence' part.

 

Link to NPR story where the quotes came from:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/699976689/house-judiciary-launches-probe-of-allegations-of-obstruction-by-president-trump

[Coreece 190]

On 3/5/2019 at 7:25 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

He also reiterated his position that there was "no collusion. It's all a hoax."

We have the best hoaxes.

[billvon 2,400]

Trump's campaign chairman sentenced to four years in jail.  LOCK HIM UP!  And he hasn't even been sentenced yet for his collusion with a Russian agent to tamper with witnesses.

For a "witch hunt" it sure is finding a lot of witches.

[headoverheels 291]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Trump's campaign chairman sentenced to four years in jail.  LOCK HIM UP!  And he hasn't even been sentenced yet for his collusion with a Russian agent to tamper with witnesses.

Freeking slap on the wrist.   Drug possession gets more than that.

[ryoder 1,384]

5 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Freeking slap on the wrist.   Drug possession gets more than that.

1/5 of what sentencing guidelines called for.

Looks like someone got to the judge.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

8 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Freeking slap on the wrist.   Drug possession gets more than that.

In the US people serve life sentences, without parole, for shoplifting.

The US justice system is an absolute joke.

[headoverheels 291]

58 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

In the US people serve life sentences, without parole, for shoplifting.

The US justice system is an absolute joke.

A woman in Texas is serving five years for voting while on probation , which she mistakenly thought was allowed. Another woman in Texas, a permanent resident , is serving eight years for voting with only a green card , which she mistakenly thought was allowed . 

[billvon 2,400]

12 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

A woman in Texas is serving five years for voting while on probation , which she mistakenly thought was allowed. Another woman in Texas, a permanent resident , is serving eight years for voting with only a green card , which she mistakenly thought was allowed . 

But who did they vote for?  If they voted for republicans, then it's a witch hunt.