EPTUS Politics Mega-Blog - Page 110
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On December 19 2018 03:01 Doodsmack wrote: Wonder if the trump foundation investigation will become criminal nature if it's not already. Evidence of self dealing abounds. If these campaign finance related investigations catch trumps businesses up in them, that's pretty much the worst thing that could have come out of the Russia investigation for trump. Certainly his associates' lives of crime were unable to withstand the scrutiny. https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/1075066756128038912 Trump and his associates criminality was well known before he even ran for president. It's a shame they're only at a slight risk of being held accountable because Trump pissed off his wedding guests by being president. Same people losing their minds about Trump had no problem turning a blind eye to his bullshit when it suited them politically. That's part of what makes the faux outrage from many of them at Republicans so empty imo. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [livethread] + Twitter exchanges on the back and forth/live reporting One of the stranger parts was the Judge going all treason on him: You can’t minimize that. All along you were a foreign agent of another country while serving as the national security advisor ... Arguably you sold your country out ... The court is going to consider all that. Then later: Judge says that he made a statement about Flynn being a foreign agent and that the special counsel asked for that to be corrected. Judge says he was not suggesting that Flynn committed treason or other violations. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On December 19 2018 04:36 Danglars wrote: Flynn's sentencing is delayed until March, per order from the judge. Special counsel did not object. Happy Holidays, Flynn! The justification and context is a little too involved to summarize here. It hinges on Flynn's continued cooperation in the FARA/Turkey case. + Show Spoiler [livethread] + Twitter exchanges on the back and forth/live reporting https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1075068133424156673 One of the stranger parts was the Judge going all treason on him: You can’t minimize that. All along you were a foreign agent of another country while serving as the national security advisor ... Arguably you sold your country out ... The court is going to consider all that. Then later: Judge says that he made a statement about Flynn being a foreign agent and that the special counsel asked for that to be corrected. Judge says he was not suggesting that Flynn committed treason or other violations. According to the Guardian, the judge asked prosecutors if it could be argued that Flynn committed treason. Prosecutors declined to answer. Since the judge also told at one point that Flynn was a foreign agent while being a National Security Advisor to the President (which is false from what we know, it was BEFORE Trump being president), which it seems prosecutors asked to correct, he rolled back his comments and apologised, to avoid Flynn being seen as a traitor. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 19 2018 02:17 xDaunt wrote: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/white-house-suggests-it-will-back-down-on-5-billion-border-wall-demand.html Fair enough. I mean, it makes sense. The optics for a shutdown over this are horrible and people have probably been in Trump's ear telling him so. Surely there are other ways to get to the money he wants, like Sanders suggests? Or are the budget deals from the House binding in the US? In the UK the Treasury is kind of a separate entity but if the PM sends an order they'll make the money available for it provided they can. RE: Judge's comments I think that's a moment of personal feelings overriding public duty. He said some things he probably personally believed but was later talked to and realised it doesn't work for [INSERT LEGAL REASONS HERE]. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
In other news, perhaps it is time that Mueller start investigating Hillary: British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election. He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference. His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer. British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election. He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference. His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer. Source. So again: who conspired with whom to disrupt the American electoral system? Looks like this Trump/Russia collusion business is a massive projection. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On December 19 2018 07:34 xDaunt wrote: In other news, perhaps it is time that Mueller start investigating Hillary: Source. So again: who conspired with whom to disrupt the American electoral system? Looks like this Trump/Russia collusion business is a massive projection. I still fail to see the relationship between : - hiring an foreign individual to do opposition research and maybe using his findings, if useful, to lawfully contest an election result, - (allegedly) coordinating with another STATE (and the historic enemy one) to stealthily influence the voters through schemes, hacking and social media manipulation (not even talking about quid pro quo or russians having leverage on Trump). - Agreeing to meeting state-sanctioned officials from that same country offering "dirt" on the opponent. The type of conspiracy being discussed, "collusion", is with a foreign power, a country. Not a random guy being paid. I don't believe Steele releasing the dossier in the wild to the press and the FBI was in the DNC plans. There should be an investigation on what exactly ? How is using a british ex-spy worse from hiring let's say an israeli firm to do big data gathering to influence voters for an election ? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On December 19 2018 07:34 xDaunt wrote: I'm not sure that there's much to read into the judge's comments other than his incredulity at what Flynn actually pleaded guilty to. His unwillingness to sentence Flynn today suggests that he's having a hard time figuring out what to make of this case. He obviously does not like how Mueller's team and the FBI entrapped Flynn. Are you saying that the judge is disregarding Flynn's attorneys word that he was not entrapped? | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote: You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2018 08:15 Tachion wrote: Are you saying that the judge is disregarding Flynn's attorneys word that he was not entrapped? Yep. The judge isn't stupid. He's seen the 302s. That's why he kept giving Flynn an opportunity to opt out of the plea deal. However, the judge also knows that Mueller could have, but did not, bring a FARA charge against Flynn. The judge also has surmised that Flynn may be pleading to the lying charge to avoid prosecution under FARA, so the judge doesn't want to necessarily ruin that arrangement for Flynn. This judge clearly cares about justice and is not sure that this plea deal in which Flynn is confessing to a crime that he likely did not commit fulfills it. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 19 2018 05:34 Nouar wrote: According to the Guardian, the judge asked prosecutors if it could be argued that Flynn committed treason. Prosecutors declined to answer. Since the judge also told at one point that Flynn was a foreign agent while being a National Security Advisor to the President (which is false from what we know, it was BEFORE Trump being president), which it seems prosecutors asked to correct, he rolled back his comments and apologised, to avoid Flynn being seen as a traitor. That's the part of the lead-up which was strange. The remaining steps are just funny: treason yet a NATO ally, treason for being unregistered, treason yet not charged for it, treason yet recommending no jail time. Judge is confused and the whole thing is wild. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 19 2018 07:34 xDaunt wrote: I'm not sure that there's much to read into the judge's comments other than his incredulity at what Flynn actually pleaded guilty to. His unwillingness to sentence Flynn today suggests that he's having a hard time figuring out what to make of this case. He obviously does not like how Mueller's team and the FBI entrapped Flynn. Flynn denies being entrapped and you read it as the judge thought Flynn was entrapped. Flynn's lawyers delay sentencing after basically being threatened with jail time so that Flynn can cooperate with prosecutors more. Judge made it abundantly clear that he was ready to hand down something harsh. Asks Flynn whether he really wants to go forward with all of this today, given that hes cooperating in this other case and that could help his sentencing. And you read it as more or less flynn-favored. The partisan bias should be clear here. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote: You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Dont know why you would claim that a lack of evidence is the same as proving the dossier false. It's not like you dont understand those two concepts. I guess you are just intentionally misrepresenting things because you feel that's what the other side does or something. Btw trumps bodyguards testimony to Congress puts trump at the scene of the hotel, being offered 5 Russian prostitutes to join him in his hotel room. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
One of the keys that makes this an almost impossible push for most of the people on that list (besides not running) is the 15% viability rule which means everyone but Biden and Bernie have to gain vote share to even be able to get delegates. There's simply no way those candidates are going to do that without a huge lift from corporate media. At least not in enough states to actually have a chance at the nomination. It's starting to look like the best hope for Democrats to keep Bernie from getting the nomination is not having a nominee going into the convention and deferring back to the DNC case where they said that they can pick whomever they want for their nominee, to hell with the primary votes. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2018 11:24 Doodsmack wrote: Flynn denies being entrapped and you read it as the judge thought Flynn was entrapped. Flynn's lawyers delay sentencing after basically being threatened with jail time so that Flynn can cooperate with prosecutors more. Judge made it abundantly clear that he was ready to hand down something harsh. Asks Flynn whether he really wants to go forward with all of this today, given that hes cooperating in this other case and that could help his sentencing. And you read it as more or less flynn-favored. The partisan bias should be clear here. I'm an attorney, and I know what the normal judicial advisements for plea deals look like. Typically there aren't recesses for the defendant to reconsider the plea at these types of sentencing hearings. Typically the judges don't ask the defendants whether they were set up by the state. Typically the judges don't postpone the sentencing hearing for 90 without motion from the parties. What happened with Flynn was not normal. It is obvious to anyone familiar with the law that the judge has misgivings about the plea deal. Now, that does not mean (and I did not say) that the judge may not come down hard on Flynn with whatever sentence is ultimately issued. All I said is that the judge is struggling with how to deal with the situation. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2018 11:33 Doodsmack wrote: Dont know why you would claim that a lack of evidence is the same as proving the dossier false. It's not like you dont understand those two concepts. I guess you are just intentionally misrepresenting things because you feel that's what the other side does or something. Btw trumps bodyguards testimony to Congress puts trump at the scene of the hotel, being offered 5 Russian prostitutes to join him in his hotel room. You have this backwards. The dossier isn't presumably true. But more to the point, there is nothing proving that it is true at all. And there are numerous things that are demonstrably false about it, such as the critical claim that Cohen went to Prague to collude with the Russians. Why do you think everyone is backing away from it? Even reporters like Isikoff who were all over the Russian collusion story from the beginning now think that the dossier is false. Hell, Mueller has been investigating the basic premise of the dossier for 18 months and has nothing to show for it. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote: Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote: First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On December 19 2018 12:35 xDaunt wrote: You have this backwards. The dossier isn't presumably true. But more to the point, there is nothing proving that it is true at all. And there are numerous things that are demonstrably false about it, such as the critical claim that Cohen went to Prague to collude with the Russians. Why do you think everyone is backing away from it? Even reporters like Isikoff who were all over the Russian collusion story from the beginning now think that the dossier is false. Hell, Mueller has been investigating the basic premise of the dossier for 18 months and has nothing to show for it. These people at lawfareblog disagree with your assessment. One part that was true for example is that the dossier said russian intelligence gave the DNC emails to wikileaks. And Mueller indicted 12 GRU officers for exactly this. These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven. As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials. However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops. https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective | ||
| ||
