Jump to content
NM11046

DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Here's a really good article showing all the Russian money that went to Republican campaigns.

 

How Putin's oligarchs funneled money into GOP campaigns

 

Quote

In total, Blavatnik, Intrater, Shustorovich and Kukes made $10.4 million in political contributions from the start of the 2015-16 election cycle through September 2017, and 99 percent of their contributions went to Republicans. With the exception of Shustorovich, the common denominator that connects the men is their association with Vekselberg. Experts who follow the activities of Russian oligarchs told ABC News that they believe the contributions from Blavatnik, Intrater and Kukes warrant intense scrutiny because they have worked closely with Vekselberg.
 

Even if the donations by the four men associated with Russia ultimately pass muster with Mueller, one still has to wonder: Why did GOP PACs and other Trump-controlled funds take their money? Why didn't the PACs say, "Thanks, but no thanks," like the Republicans said to Shustorovich in 2000? Yes, it was legal to accept their donations, but it was incredibly poor judgment.

 

McConnell surely knew as a participant in high level intelligence briefings in 2016 that our electoral process was under attack by the Russians. Two weeks after the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement in October 2016 that the Russian government had directed the effort to interfere in our electoral process, McConnell's PAC accepted a $1 million donation from Blavatnik's AI-Altep Holdings. The PAC took another $1 million from Blavatnik's AI-Altep Holdings on March 30, 2017, just 10 days after former FBI Director James Comey publicly testified before the House Intelligence Committee about Russia's interference in the election.

 

No way to both sides this one. Also tells you everything you need to know about McConnell's principles, or lack thereof.

 

Quote

The hybrid super-PAC, The Committee to Defend the President, was formed in 2013 under the name Stop Hillary PAC. It is managed by Dan Backer, the lead attorney who won the McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission case in 2014. The Supreme Court decision eliminated the cap on how much wealthy individuals can donate to federal candidates, parties and PACs in a single, two-year election cycle.

 

Like Bossie, Dan Backer helped to open the floodgates to millions of dollars of influence brought to bear on incumbents and their political challengers who are now pressured to kowtow to their donors with the biggest bank accounts, even if their billions are earned in Russian rubles.

 

Backer was born in Russia and emigrated with his family to the U.S. in 1978.

 

The changes to our campaign finance laws created an avenue for Russia to try to influence our elections. There are holes in our firewall and they aren't on the internet.

 

Fitting. It's embarrassing how full of holes our campaign finance system has become. I heard recently there is some desire to add a 7th member to the FEC, which would eliminate the stupid perpetual 3-3 partisan tie that renders it useless and unable to police anything. It's telling that the GOP unilaterally wants allow unlimited amounts of dark money from whomever as long as it lets them cling to power, and thus works toward those ends. There's mounting pressure from the rest of us to actually fix this monstrosity.

  • Plus1 6
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Someone had corrected me before that Trump can't be found guilty of Treason based on the semantics of the legal definition. Collusion is the best we can get...

That only applies to criminal proceedings. Impeachment is a political process, so if the House drafts articles of impeachment that say "treason", then the trial in the Senate would be over "treason".

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how there's someone that keeps eyerolling all of the actual citations and proof of wrongdoing, yet doesn't have the cojones to refute or defend the practice. 

 

It's like the ghost of RicFlair haunts these boards and eyerolls anything that doesn't conform with his (incorrect) reality. Whoooooooooooooooooo!!

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I love how there's someone that keeps eyerolling all of the actual citations and proof of wrongdoing, yet doesn't have the cojones to refute or defend the practice. 

 

It's like the ghost of RicFlair haunts these boards and eyerolls anything that doesn't conform with his (incorrect) reality. Whoooooooooooooooooo!!

Yep, got to be Ric -   Funny how quiet he and others Trumpers have gotten since the 2018 election rebuttal. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

I love how there's someone that keeps eyerolling all of the actual citations and proof of wrongdoing, yet doesn't have the cojones to refute or defend the practice. 

 

It's like the ghost of RicFlair haunts these boards and eyerolls anything that doesn't conform with his (incorrect) reality. Whoooooooooooooooooo!!

Facts have a liberal bias, and should be disregarded.

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mrandyk said:

Facts have a liberal bias, and should be disregarded.

 

Agreed. We need conservative facts on this board to balance things out. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Was he also pushing his tongue into his cheek while he made those stroking motions?

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

 

So... It's not a witch Hunt?

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, QMany said:

 

 

Rudy: The Best Defense attorney a Prosecuter could have (opposing him).  :laughpound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Atlantic mag calls for Trump's impeachment now based on his unfitness for the office.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/425786-the-atlantic-calls-for-trump-impeachment

 

Quote

 

Atlantic senior editor Yoni Appelbaum pens the cover story, in which he argues that Congress can “rein in a president who is undermining American ideals” by starting the impeachment process, taking control of the fitness-for-office debate. 

Congressional Democrats have so far largely quashed calls for impeachment, saying the move would be premature and viewed as partisan overreach. 

“If there's to be grounds for impeachment of President Trump — and I'm not seeking those grounds — that would have to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance of it before I think we should go down any impeachment path,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said earlier this month.In The Atlantic piece, which is printed with the headline “The Case for Impeachment,” Appelbaum writes that Trump has “repeatedly trampled” on the Constitution, with his policies, approaches to the
investigations that surround his administration and attacks on political opponents. 

“These actions are, in sum, an attack on the very foundations of America’s constitutional democracy,” he writes.

Appelbaum says that beginning the impeachment process is a way for Congress to take control of the allegations that Trump has committed offenses that may rise to the level of grounds for removal from office.

“With a newly seated Democratic majority, the House of Representatives can no longer dodge its constitutional duty,” Appelbaum writes. “It must immediately open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and bring the debate out of the court of public opinion and into Congress, where it belongs.”

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if the eye rollers would speak their mind instead of hiding in the shadows.  ... Ric??

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


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

It would be nice if the eye rollers would speak their mind instead of hiding in the shadows.  ... Ric??

#eyeTrollers

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oof. This is the type of headline that makes you drop your Big Mac mid-bite, if you're a certain truth-challenged Oval Office resident.

 

That's obstruction, right? No doubt about it?

 

Edit: Brutal. His own company.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost wish they'd stop dropping this stuff individually. I feel like it dulls the senses, and the Republicans can see their base doesn't give a rat's a$$.

 

I wonder how likely it is that we either start a war before the Cohen stuff or there's another migrant caravan we need to be super scared about, this time hauling nuclear weapons.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


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

Oof. This is the type of headline that makes you drop your Big Mac mid-bite, if you're a certain truth-challenged Oval Office resident.

 

That's obstruction, right? No doubt about it?

 

Edit: Brutal. His own company.

 

 

 

 

 

Same guy retweeted this. It's on the bottom of the first page of Barr's letter to Rosenstein. I think Barr is a conundrum. I was reading today that Trump is worried now because he didn't know how close Barr and Mueller were. He might be better than whoever Trump would pick if it's not Barr. He did write this letter without the full knowledge of the case, and by the 2nd quote likely didn't have any inside info about this new stuff.

 

Quote

"If a President...suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity of available evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction." — William Barr

 

He later states:
 

Quote

The president, as far as I know, is not being accused of engaging in any wrongful act of evidence impairment.

 

1-e2f41ba881.jpg

2-5760a4eeaa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dems smell blood in the water (can sharks smell blood :dunno) and rightly so.   Resigned or be impeached.   

There was a period when the Nixon probably knew when he was toast - when the WH tapes were 'discovered' via John Dean's testimony and more so when it was discovered that there was the gap in the tape.  Nixon was dead man walking but he was able to walk for many months until it finally came to a point where he had to resign.  I think the Trump dominoes will fall quicker. Nixon, up to watergate, could have been considered a decent president and he had won a 49 state landslide reelection.  So he had some loyalty within the party and the public to hold things together for a period of time.  While the congressional repubs have shown stupidity by tying their boats to Trump, I think that when the evidence comes out, they won't be able to withstand the tidal wave that will come against Trump and hopefully will remember that their loyalty belongs to the Constitution and the people first.    VP Pence should start getting his SOTUS ready - he may be presenting one mid summer or earlier

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425973-intel-dem-trump-must-resign-or-be-impeached-if-report-about-directing-cohen-to

 

Quote

 

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) called for President Trump to resign or be impeached if a report about him directing his former longtime lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress is true.

Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was referring to a report published by Buzzfeed News on Thursday night regarding Cohen’s misstatements to Congress.  

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump is Toast.  All 9 lawyers agree in this survey that if true,  Trump is guilty of  subornation of perjury and obstruction.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/18/18188125/trump-buzzfeed-mueller-cohen-obstruction

 

A sampling of the responses from 4 of the 9

 

Quote

 

Bob Bauer, law professor, New York University

The relevant law includes obstruction (18 USC § 1505), conspiracy to make false statements (18 USC §§ 1001 and 371), and aiding and abetting an offense against the United States (18 USC §2(a)). The only issue is the evidence, and we can be sure to hear from Donald Trump’s quarters that Cohen is lying and that he never directed Cohen to make the false statements.We do not know all the specifics of Cohen’s account to the prosecutors, but what we do know — the White House’s involvement in the preparation of the testimony and the relationship between Cohen and the president in which Cohen did what he was told — does not bode well for Trump.

It is striking that former White counsel Don McGahn has said through his lawyers that his office knew nothing about the testimony; this points in the direction of a closed process in which the president personally directed the review, if not the preparation, of statements that he knew not to be true.

Then there is the email traffic cited in the BuzzFeed story that supports the Cohen narrative about the hotel negotiations and, along with law enforcement interviews, apparently corroborates Cohen’s testimony that the president directed him to lie. (Those emails suggest that Don Jr. faces serious problems with the account he gave to the Senate of his knowledge of the election-year hotel negotiations.)

Finally, while the immediate focus is on the president’s legal problems, this could also be the inescapable launching point for the impeachment process.

Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School

To prove subornation of perjury, a prosecutor has to prove a defendant procured someone else’s false testimony on a material matter. Subornation charges apply only in successful cases — where the perjury is “actually committed.” That might sound narrow, but in fact, federal law effectively punishes “attempted subornation” under several additional statutes.

First, if two or more persons conspired to suborn perjury, they could be charged under the conspiracy statute. Second, federal courts have held that subornation of perjury can serve as the basis of an obstruction charge. Obstruction broadly covers attempts to obstruct justice — and not just successful obstructions of justice.

Accordingly, if President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie in congressional testimony — and, if as reported, there exists evidence that corroborates Michael Cohen’s contentions —President Trump’s vulnerability to impeachment and possibly criminal charges has become more heightened than it was even a few months ago.

Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan

Is it obstruction of justice to direct a witness to lie to Congress under oath? Of course. Equally clear (if possible, more so) it’s suborning perjury, also a felony.

Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, 2007 to 2016

Yes. If someone knowingly directs another person to lie to Congress, they are also guilty of lying to Congress. That is an easy question.

 

 

Share this post


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

The Dems smell blood in the water (can sharks smell blood :dunno) and rightly so.   Resigned or be impeached.   

There was a period when the Nixon probably knew when he was toast - when the WH tapes were 'discovered' via John Dean's testimony and more so when it was discovered that there was the gap in the tape.  Nixon was dead man walking but he was able to walk for many months until it finally came to a point where he had to resign.  I think the Trump dominoes will fall quicker. Nixon, up to watergate, could have been considered a decent president and he had won a 49 state landslide reelection.  So he had some loyalty within the party and the public to hold things together for a period of time.  While the congressional repubs have shown stupidity by tying their boats to Trump, I think that when the evidence comes out, they won't be able to withstand the tidal wave that will come against Trump and hopefully will remember that their loyalty belongs to the Constitution and the people first.    VP Pence should start getting his SOTUS ready - he may be presenting one mid summer or earlier

 

 

Trump seems to be a different animal than Nixon though. I don't know if he would resign. I think he will go kicking and screaming. I think he will make the senate convict him.

Share this post


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

 

 

Trump seems to be a different animal than Nixon though. I don't know if he would resign. I think he will go kicking and screaming. I think he will make the senate convict him.

I agree 100%.   Unless he can fake a heart attack and leave under 'health reasons'  in order to save face. 

 

We will soon get to that "TIMES SQUARE MOMENT"   - you know when Trump could shoot someone in Times Square and his followers will support him regardless ( Talk about a Cult Personality trait).  We'll see how loyal his cult followers are after the Cohen testimony before congress and after the House takes up impeachment shortly afterwards - which they will have basically no other choice if Cohen's words are supported by other evidence. 

 

Share this post


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

I agree 100%.   Unless he can fake a heart attack and leave under 'health reasons'  in order to save face. 

 

We will soon get to that "TIMES SQUARE MOMENT"   - you know when Trump could shoot someone in Times Square and his followers will support him regardless ( Talk about a Cult Personality trait).  We'll see how loyal his cult followers are after the Cohen testimony before congress and after the House takes up impeachment shortly afterwards - which they will have basically no other choice if Cohen's words are supported by other evidence.

 

 

The Buzzfeed story you linked said there are emails. Imagine if Trump was dumb enough to order it in an email... it's not hard to imagine him being that stupid, just hilarious to think about.

 

Quote

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

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


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

I agree 100%.   Unless he can fake a heart attack and leave under 'health reasons'  in order to save face. 

 

We will soon get to that "TIMES SQUARE MOMENT"   - you know when Trump could shoot someone in Times Square and his followers will support him regardless ( Talk about a Cult Personality trait).  We'll see how loyal his cult followers are after the Cohen testimony before congress and after the House takes up impeachment shortly afterwards - which they will have basically no other choice if Cohen's words are supported by other evidence. 

 

Those bone spurs might start acting up again

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

It's telling they haven't made any other statements like this.

 

I highly doubt Buzzfeed lied about this, so I wonder if someone made it up to see how far it would go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCO Statement is quite lawyerly and vague. 

 

It is important to remember we already knew Trump directed Cohen to lie:

 

 

Share this post


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

SCO Statement is quite lawyerly and vague. 

 

It is important to remember we already knew Trump directed Cohen to lie:

 

 

 

 

 

So it’s likely there are details that are incorrect. They didn’t state the entire thing was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me, Buzz Feed was very irresponsible by running this story. 

 

Not all media needs to be condemned because of this like dear president trying to do. 

 

But, Buzz Feed is probably getting a lot of what they deserve. 

Share this post


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

It appears to me, Buzz Feed was very irresponsible by running this story. 

 

Not all media needs to be condemned because of this like dear president trying to do. 

 

But, Buzz Feed is probably getting a lot of what they deserve. 

 

 

 

I’ve been saying awhile now I wish the media would let Mueller come out with what he wants when he wants. That’s even for the 100% true stuff. I’ve wondered if some of the leaks have been on purpose, though. Mueller needs regular people to think the investigation is legitimate, too, since Trump talks to regular people every day through Twitter.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


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

I’ve been saying awhile now I wish the media would let Mueller come out with what he wants when he wants. That’s even for the 100% true stuff. I’ve wondered if some of the leaks have been on purpose, though. Mueller needs regular people to think the investigation is legitimate, too, since Trump talks to regular people every day through Twitter.

 

I tend to agree.

 

But to play Devil's Advocate here... how long do we allow Trump to destroy our institutions and place his henchmen in places of power without throwing up some huge red flags? He nominated an AG that wrote an unsolicited memo opposing Mueller's investigation. Knock on wood, if RGB dies soon, Trump will have personally appointed 3/9 of the Supreme Court. He seeks "loyalty pledges" from everyone. That is a firm grasp on the Justice Department and the highest Court in the land. Who is going to check his power, McConnell!?!

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×