|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 30 2017 02:18 Wulfey_LA wrote: For trump to be this crazy, almost makes me think Kushner. Big question is what to Rs do when Trump goes full Nixon and fires Mueller to protect his beloved son in law. Isn't he just gonna pardon him?
|
|
no way do they go for Kushner before Manafort. Trump is just naturally an angry man who likes to ramble on twitter and I don't think his anger above is any more serious than it was before. He has always been furious about all the Russia investigations and quite frankly doesn't understand it, which makes the question of why it exists so much more bothering for him.
|
On October 30 2017 02:18 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 02:18 Wulfey_LA wrote: For trump to be this crazy, almost makes me think Kushner. Big question is what to Rs do when Trump goes full Nixon and fires Mueller to protect his beloved son in law. Isn't he just gonna pardon him? If he pardons Kushner and Kushner accepts, it means that Kushner is admitting he was guilty of what he was being accused of. At that point some state AGs would probably try to get into the running, and Trump can't pardon him of anything but federal crimes
|
Kushner was the one who was pushing for Comey to be fired. No one else thought it was a good idea. Kushner's schemes and work with Cambridge Analytica go straight towards the Russian collusion and obstruction of justice (Comey) that Mueller was called upon to investigate.
Manafort's money laundering could be taken down by any old AG office. The freak out here feels way higher than I would expect if Manafort were just going down for regular old Russia-Cyprus-TrumpCondos money laundering.
WSJ Editorial board is openly calling for firing Mueller and indicting Hillary. This is Jeanine Pirro level stuff coming from an international tier newspaper.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board called this week for a full Russia investigation — not into President Donald Trump, but into the Democratic party, the FBI, and special counsel Robert Mueller.
"It turns out that Russia has sown distrust in the U.S. political system—aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, and perhaps the FBI," the editorial began. "This is an about-face from the dominant media narrative of the last year, and it requires a full investigation."
The editorial argued that a Washington Post report published Tuesday "revealed" that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired the Perkins Coie law firm, which in turn retained the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and funded a now-infamous dossier containing salacious allegations about Trump's ties to Russia. The dossier was compiled by ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, who has several deep Russian sources.
"Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a US presidential candidate," the editorial said. "Did someone say 'collusion'?"
http://www.businessinsider.com/wsj-mueller-trump-russia-dossier-collusion-clinton-2017-10
|
It doesn't seem like a major freak out to me; jus ta garden variety trump nonsense, but I haven't been looking very closely. at any rate, we'll find out tomorrow, and then we can respond based on what we have. no need to speculate rampantly in this case, as we'll have a good answer soon.
|
On October 30 2017 02:39 Wulfey_LA wrote:Kushner was the one who was pushing for Comey to be fired. No one else thought it was a good idea. Kushner's schemes and work with Cambridge Analytica go straight towards the Russian collusion and obstruction of justice (Comey) that Mueller was called upon to investigate. Manafort's money laundering could be taken down by any old AG office. The freak out here feels way higher than I would expect if Manafort were just going down for regular old Russia-Cyprus-TrumpCondos money laundering. WSJ Editorial board is openly calling for firing Mueller and indicting Hillary. This is Jeanine Pirro level stuff coming from an international tier newspaper. Show nested quote + The Wall Street Journal's editorial board called this week for a full Russia investigation — not into President Donald Trump, but into the Democratic party, the FBI, and special counsel Robert Mueller.
"It turns out that Russia has sown distrust in the U.S. political system—aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, and perhaps the FBI," the editorial began. "This is an about-face from the dominant media narrative of the last year, and it requires a full investigation."
The editorial argued that a Washington Post report published Tuesday "revealed" that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired the Perkins Coie law firm, which in turn retained the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and funded a now-infamous dossier containing salacious allegations about Trump's ties to Russia. The dossier was compiled by ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, who has several deep Russian sources.
"Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a US presidential candidate," the editorial said. "Did someone say 'collusion'?"
http://www.businessinsider.com/wsj-mueller-trump-russia-dossier-collusion-clinton-2017-10 Looks like just another Trump diversion tbh. nothing special about it. If it was Kushner I would expect Mueller to be fired already.
The reason you go after Manafort first is that you want to put him under pressure to give up information that you can use against the bigger guys. You want a testimony from a guy who was in the room to make things stick.
|
On October 30 2017 01:45 Slaughter wrote: The more Trump tweets the more I kind of wish societies still exiled people, not sure who would take Trump and his shitty family though. Your gripe is really with the people that sent him to office despite his tweeting habits. Half the country already wants to exile the other half from what I can tell.
|
On October 30 2017 03:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 01:45 Slaughter wrote: The more Trump tweets the more I kind of wish societies still exiled people, not sure who would take Trump and his shitty family though. Your gripe is really with the people that sent him to office despite his tweeting habits. Half the country already wants to exile the other half from what I can tell. No one wants to exile all Trump voters. I'm sure the majority of farmers voted for him, and I like having food.
I've actually never seen anyone call to exile the KKK or white supremacists either.
|
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.
|
On October 30 2017 03:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 01:45 Slaughter wrote: The more Trump tweets the more I kind of wish societies still exiled people, not sure who would take Trump and his shitty family though. Your gripe is really with the people that sent him to office despite his tweeting habits. Half the country already wants to exile the other half from what I can tell.
Not really. Unlike the caricature of the left that the right peddles most people don't think everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable like Trump himself is
|
|
On October 29 2017 19:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 11:03 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2017 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote: The point is that even if she was the driving force behind the deal somehow theres still no way for it to , in reality world, be bad in any way for her to have done it. Which I'm not arguing against in the first place (regarding signing off). I'm just saying it looks similar (though less direct/egregious) than other instances of international wheel greasing like the UBS thing for example. Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.
The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.
“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”
Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.” SourceBut that's just me. Speaking fees from people you had to deal with in your professional capacity as an employee is basically as conflict of interesty as you can get. If you did that shit in the private sector you'd get fired but somehow when your employer is the population of the United States you don't. Yes Also I hope the Mueller fans are ready for a ball full of disappointment.. Wait, what would be the disappointing outcome? I'm pretty sure everyone expects Manafort to be the name released tomorrow. At most, Kushner as well.
So, like, this is your forum and youtube channel, right? Hard to think of anything less noteworthy than a forum thread with 3 posts and a Youtuber named "Styxhexenhammer666" (so edgy).
|
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote: Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it. I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.
|
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote: Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it. I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however. What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?
|
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote: Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it. I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however. What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research? We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.
|
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote: Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it. I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however. What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research? We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account. Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).
Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."
|
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote: Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it. I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however. What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research? We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account. Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?). Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms." Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.
|
The trump defense of "but it didn't work" seems strangely relevant to that argument.
|
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote: Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it. I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however. What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research? We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account. This wouldn't be laundering.. I don't know of any reporting requirement that would make this mis-categorizing an expense either. Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|