DemonGeminiX (08-21-2018)
You could tell it was a disastrous day for Trump. He kept quiet
New York: In the Trump era, the constant fog of controversy can make it hard to tell the difference between a game-changing crisis and a passing irritant.
But Tuesday's guilty plea by Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen was, without question, a disaster for a President who has so far been able to survive seemingly any scandal.
This was one of Trump's worst days since he came to power.
The surest sign was his silence. Trump is known for his bellicosity and willingness to retaliate when under attack. But when confronted by reporters about Cohen pleading guilty to eight charges, he avoided the topic, as he did at a rally on Tuesday night in West Virginia. Six hours after the plea deal became public, Trump's Twitter account still had nothing to say.
That's because Trump is now officially implicated in a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. And not by colluding with Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails, but rather by allegedly paying hush money to a porn star and a model to stop them blabbing about affairs with him.
When first revealed earlier this year, the Stormy Daniels story, centred on a $US130,000 payment to the adult film star, seemed a somewhat tawdry distraction from more important issues. It may well prove to be the defining scandal of Trump's presidency, and the question of Russian collusion, with all its apparent geopolitical gravitas, the sideshow.
That's because this touches Trump directly: it goes to his own behaviour, his truthfulness and the integrity of his marriage. Trump and his aides are far more spooked by the Cohen trial than by the conviction on Tuesday of his former campaign chair Paul Manafort (on charges unrelated to his time working for Trump).
On Tuesday Cohen told a New York court that “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” he and the chief executive of a media company worked to keep an individual (former Playboy model Karen McDougal) from publicly disclosing information that could harm the candidate (Trump). Cohen said he worked “in coordination” with the candidate to make a payment to a second individual (Stormy Daniels).
“Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election,” Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis later said. “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”
The reason is that, according to conventional legal wisdom, sitting American presidents are immune from routine criminal prosecution - a view long maintained by the Justice Department.
While Trump is unlikely to be charged while in office, if Cohen's claims are upheld they increase the likelihood of impeachment by the House of Representatives if the Democrats seize control in November.
The threshold for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanours" - a standard many Democrats may conclude is met by a presidential candidate violating campaign finance laws. Especially given the Trump campaign originally "unequivocally" denied any knowledge of the Daniels payment.
To paraphrase Martin Lawrence's iconic line from Bad Boys II: things just got real.
FULL ARTICLE
Robert Mueller's victory could be a tipping point for Donald Trump's presidency
By Sandeep Gopalan
Updated about 4 hours ago
Today marks the biggest legal setback for United States President Donald Trump — two of his inner circle are now convicted felons and the hounds are getting closer to the gates.
Paul Manafort, Mr Trump's former campaign chairman, was found guilty on eight counts by a jury in Alexandria, Virginia.
Manafort's trial — the first stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation — notably had nothing to do with Russia or that country's alleged interference with the 2016 presidential election.
Rather, the prosecution charged Manafort with 18 counts of bank/tax fraud, and conspiracy.
Following four days of deliberations, the jury was hung on 10 counts, raising the possibility that the prosecution would re-try him on those counts.
The trial was acrimonious, and the judge showed low tolerance for the prosecution's strategy trying to portray Manafort as a greedy operator who lied and fraudulently concealed his financial affairs for a number of years.
Ultimately, the 12-person jury found that Manafort was guilty on five counts of filing false income tax returns (relating to millions of dollars of income derived from consulting work in Ukraine), one count of non-disclosure of foreign bank accounts (relating to disclosures required in respect of accounts owned by citizens in foreign financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act), and two counts of banking fraud (relating to obtaining millions of dollars in loans by defrauding banks). The sentencing is awaited.
This raises intriguing questions:
Will Mr Mueller be able to persuade Manafort to flip in exchange for a light sentence?
Will the judge be lenient in his sentencing given his posture toward the prosecution?
And will the President pardon Mr Manafort?
In relation to number one, Mr Mueller's hand is unmistakably strengthened by the guilty verdict because Manafort finally faces the real prospect of spending the rest of his life in jail.
Manafort — reportedly a connoisseur of fine living — has a real incentive now to cooperate to reduce his time in prison.
With regard to number two, Judge Ellis, in his ruling against Manafort's challenge to Mr Mueller's authority, had stated: "… we have a prosecution of a campaign official, not a government official, for acts that occurred well before the presidential election."
"To be sure, it is plausible, indeed ultimately persuasive here, to argue that the investigation and prosecution has some relevance to the election which occurred months, if not years, after the alleged misconduct."
And during arguments the judge noted that Mr Mueller was only bringing this prosecution of Manafort over financial crimes committed decades ago — not because of any special interest in Manafort — but in an effort to get at Mr Trump.
He also wrote about Mr Mueller: "The appointment of special prosecutors has the potential to disrupt … checks and balances, and to inject a level of toxic partisanship into investigation of matters of public importance."
It remains to be seen whether these sentiments affect the sentence awarded to Manafort.
Thirdly, Manafort may not cooperate because of the prospect of a pardon from the President.
Just weeks ago, the President tweeted:
Today, following the guilty verdict, Mr Trump told the media that Manafort "is a good man who was with Ronald Reagan … I feel very sad about that [guilty verdict] … it's a sad thing that happened … this is a witch hunt."
He also stressed that the verdict had nothing to do with Russia collusion and said: "I feel very badly for Paul Manafort."
Last weekend, Mr Trump again doubled down on condemnation of Mr Mueller in very harsh terms:
Given his comments, Manafort might calculate that Mr Trump's professed sympathy for him might yield a pardon.
If a pardon does eventuate, that, in turn, would raise questions about Mr Trump obstructing justice and raise the prospect of impeachment.
Another consequence of the guilty verdict is the effect it might have on others being targeted by Mr Mueller.
They might calculate their odds of successfully fighting the US Government in court are low and decide to flip.
If Manafort, who is vastly better resourced, could not prevail, they will assume their chances are even lower.
This phenomenon may already be coming to fruition with the announcement today that the President's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, has pleaded guilty.
Cohen's guilty plea is massively significant — on the campaign finance violation count.
The Government alleged that in August 2015, a tabloid magazine chairman "in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1's [presumably Mr Trump] relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided".
Pursuant to that scheme, Cohen made payments "in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election".
This is the first time Mr Trump is connected personally to the commission of a felony.
Logically, if Cohen is guilty of campaign finance violations committed at the instance of Individual-1, there is a real prospect of that person also being implicated.
The Mueller team is obviously thrilled with this plea, and the prosecutors tweeted chillingly:
The message is probably directed at Mr Trump.
The question is whether and how the President will be able to get out of this legal pickle.
Dr Sandeep Gopalan is the pro vice-chancellor for academic innovation at Deakin University and a professor of law.
FULL ARTICLE
lost in melb. (08-22-2018)
7 of Trump's Dictatorial Tendencies
5 of the Most Blatantly Unethical Moves by the Trump Administration
On June 14, 2016, the Washington Post reported that Russian hackers had broken into the Democratic National Committee’s files and gained access to its research on Donald Trump. A political world already numbed by Trump’s astonishing rise barely took notice. News reports quoted experts who suggested the Russians merely wanted more information about Trump to inform their foreign-policy dealings. By that point, Russia was already broadcasting its strong preference for Trump through the media. Yet when news of the hacking broke, nobody raised the faintest suspicions that Russia wished to alter the outcome of the election, let alone that Trump or anybody connected with him might have been in cahoots with a foreign power. It was a third-rate cyberburglary. Nothing to see here.
The unfolding of the Russia scandal has been like walking into a dark cavern. Every step reveals that the cave runs deeper than we thought, and after each one, as we wonder how far it goes, our imaginations are circumscribed by the steps we have already taken. The cavern might go just a little farther, we presume, but probably not much farther. And since trying to discern the size and shape of the scandal is an exercise in uncertainty, we focus our attention on the most likely outcome, which is that the story goes a little deeper than what we have already discovered. Say, that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort told their candidate about the meeting they held at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer after they were promised dirt on Hillary Clinton; and that Trump and Kushner have some shady Russian investments; and that some of Trump’s advisers made some promises about lifting sanctions.
But what if that’s wrong? What if we’re still standing closer to the mouth of the cave than the end?
The media has treated the notion that Russia has personally compromised the president of the United States as something close to a kook theory. A minority of analysts, mostly but not exclusively on the right, have promoted aggressively exculpatory interpretations of the known facts, in which every suspicious piece of evidence turns out to have a surprisingly innocent explanation. And it is possible, though unlikely, that every trail between Trump Tower and the Kremlin extends no farther than its point of current visibility.
Read the full article here!
Collusion Chart
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Teh One Who Knocks (08-23-2018)
while Trump is frustrated by special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe — he’s “resolved” and convinced the convictions won't change a media narrative that he believes is already against him.
I have often thought that the reason for the media being against Trump is based on Trump being against the media!! And always trying to incite the public to be the same.
...just another contradiction. He's getting lost in his own lies.In an interview with Fox & Friends, Trump denied knowing about payments made by Cohen during the presidential campaign to silence two women who said they had affairs with Trump until “later on”. But he said the payments “came from me” and claimed that they were not illegal.
At the White House press briefing, Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed: “The president has done nothing wrong. There are no charges against him. There has been no collusion.” She would not rule out the possibility that Trump could pardon Manafort. And when asked if Trump has lied to the American people, Sanders replied: “that’s a ridiculous accusation”.
...but didn't deny the accusation:
DemonGeminiX (08-23-2018), RBP (08-23-2018)
You apparently weren't paying attention when he declared his candidacy. The media was ruthlessly brutal to Trump, got worse the further he got, and haven't let up a day since. Indeed, the media started it.Originally Posted by The Monk
Welcome to Politics 101. Politicians lie. Obama lied, constantly. That man couldn't hit the side of the truth barn if his life depended on it. Bush Jr. lied. Clinton lied. In fact, Clinton got impeached for lying. And about sex too. Bush lied. Reagan lied. Carter lied. etc etc etc. I bet if we go far back in time and read newspapers from back in the day, we'd find that Washington lied too. Furthermore, Senators and Representatives in Congress and all state and local level politicians all lie. If they all told the truth, they'd never get elected. Not that we don't know what the truth is... I guess we just want our politicians to lie to us. Anyway, politicians lie. I bet yours do too. Here endeth the lesson....just another contradiction. He's getting lost in his own lies.
...but didn't deny the accusation
And furthermore, just in case English is your second language, saying it's a ridiculous accusation is denying the accusation.
The crap with Manafort is nothing. The crap with Cohen is slightly worse, but I doubt anything will come of it. Every politician violates campaign finance laws. Some would tell you that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional anyway. Either way, it's not an impeachable offense. If it were, Obama would have been on the hot seat. He paid out a $300,000+ fine for his violation while he was a sitting President, if I recall correctly. The media swept it under the rug, because you know, Black Jesus and all that. Anyway, it's not as bad when you've not been elected yet as it is when you're a sitting elected official. This shit happened before Trump was elected, and there's talk about it not even being a campaign finance violation since he has a history of doing shit like this in the past. He has been married four times. You don't get married four times when you're an angel. He likes women. Again, nothing new under the sun. We knew what we were getting when we elected him. His life and indiscretions were an open book his entire life.
Personally, I'd say Karen McDougal was worth it. I always thought she was hot. Come on, man... Playmate of the Year 1998! I used to have that issue.
Stormy Daniels? Not my cup of tea, but whatever.
Billionaires. They can fuck whoever they want and then treat them like shit all they want. That's the way of the world.
Last edited by DemonGeminiX; 08-23-2018 at 08:01 PM.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
She's not another one paid off by Trump to keep quiet is she
Donald Trump warns his impeachment would cause US economy to crash
Would? or maybe "could" ??
"If I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash. I think everybody would be very poor," Mr Trump told Fox News.
"I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job," he added.
Whether he has done a good job or not, impeachment isn't about that.
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.
Again though, it's typical Trump blowing up his own ego.!
While this may be or may not be true, it is still breaking the law. If Trump pardons him it will just add to his reputation of having no respect for the law!On Manafort, Mr Trump did not say whether he would offer a pardon, but expressed "great respect" for him and argued that some of the charges made against him are things that "every consultant, every lobbyist in Washington probably does".
ARTICLE HERE
The 36 most outrageous lines in Donald Trump's Fox News interview
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
ARTICLE HERE
(CNN)President Donald Trump, amid the worst week of his presidency, sat down for a friendly interview with "Fox and Friends" host Ainsley Earhardt to make his case. As so often happens when Trump is backed into a corner, he lashed out at, well, everyone.
I went through the transcript of the interview Fox released this morning. Trump's quotes -- and my thoughts on them -- are below.
[That's worked well for him!!]27. "You know the only reason I gave him the job. Because I felt loyalty, he was an original supporter. He was on the campaign."
A remarkable admission here from Trump -- albeit unintentional. The "only reason" he appointed Jeff Sessions to be the nation's highest ranking law enforcement official was because Sessions was loyal to him on the campaign
32. "The New York Times cannot write a good story about me. They're crazed. They're like lunatics."
Let's be clear here. Trump views "true" news as news that is good for him. "Fake news" is then news that is bad for him. For all of his talk about "fake news" he is totally uninterested in the accuracy of reporting. He is entirely fixated on whether a story reads positively or negatively for him.
33. "And I'll never forget, you talk about the fake news, they said Donald Trump met [Kim Jong Un] the first day it was incredible, nobody could believe I was able to do it."
So, wait. The news is fake. But Trump cites favorably in this section the fact that the news reported on the historic summit he engineered with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. But if the news is fake, then how... [head explodes]
...........................
This just keeps on getting better and better.!!
lost in melb. (08-28-2018)
Posting Permissions
