first it takes 2 hands to hold a whopper...…...and what does self abuse have to do with my behavior on here...…….
TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED
- Thread starter BigBlackBull76
- Start date
first it takes 2 hands to hold a whopper...…...and what does self abuse have to do with my behavior on here...…….
Nope, I don't think he's had that problem ... actually, he even admits it. He gives his "opinion" only. Par for the Trump Chumps.
nongolfer
Male
This being the thread for facts, and reasoned speculation (notwithstanding the recent influx of emotional opinion):Everyone should take a moment to read this:
www.cbsnews.com
Then take a moment to read the jointly released statement from OSC and DOJ. Which is factual, and almost opposite of what is being reported.
Then if anyone has time, they should watch both the Barr interview, Mueller press conference, and compare and contrast body language.
The takeaway(s) is(are) almost entirely in the Barr interview, and it is exactly as my reasoned speculation has been now for over two years. Notwithstanding the title of this thread, and the flawed poll.
There is going to be news. I suspect in a death by a thousand cuts sort of way between now and the next Presidential election. And the general thread makes it appear the news will be much more along the lines of what I was predicting, and not so much about what others were emotionally, and factlessly posting.
William Barr interview: Read the full transcript
In an exclusive interview CBS News' Jan Crawford pressed the attorney general on a number of issues from obstruction to his new review of the Russia investigation
www.cbsnews.com
Then take a moment to read the jointly released statement from OSC and DOJ. Which is factual, and almost opposite of what is being reported.
Then if anyone has time, they should watch both the Barr interview, Mueller press conference, and compare and contrast body language.
The takeaway(s) is(are) almost entirely in the Barr interview, and it is exactly as my reasoned speculation has been now for over two years. Notwithstanding the title of this thread, and the flawed poll.
There is going to be news. I suspect in a death by a thousand cuts sort of way between now and the next Presidential election. And the general thread makes it appear the news will be much more along the lines of what I was predicting, and not so much about what others were emotionally, and factlessly posting.
damn....my bullshit detector is going crazy...can't figure out what set it off
After two years, you were wrong on everything. Lol
Oh to the contrary consumer of the great chump's cyanide orange flavored kool-aid *******,
- Michigan Rep. Justin Amash said many of his Republican colleagues in Congress agree with his views on the special counsel Robert Mueller's report but won't say it publicly.
- "You wouldn't believe how many phone conversations I had or conversations in person with colleagues" on the issue, Amash said.
- Amash, a member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, made headlines this month when he said that based on the Mueller report, he believed President Donald Trump had committed impeachable offenses.
- He also accused Attorney General William Barr of covering up Mueller's findings.
Speaking at a town hall event, Amash said, "My colleagues tell me all the time. In fact, you wouldn't believe how many phone conversations I had or conversations in person with colleagues."
"By the way," he added, "a lot of them think I'm right about the Mueller report, they just won't say it. There are a lot of Republicans."
Amash made headlines this month when he became the first Republican lawmaker to call for President Donald Trump's impeachment, based on what was contained in the Mueller report. He also accused Attorney General William Barr of deliberately misrepresenting Mueller's findings and of trying to "sell the president's false narrative" about the report to the public.
But Amash said that despite Barr's portrayal of the Mueller report, Trump's actions "meet the threshold for impeachment" and he likely would have been indicted on obstruction of justice charges, had he not been president.
Many House Democrats have also called for Trump's impeachment, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pumping the brakes on the issue and said instead that she wants to "follow the facts" and investigate the president first, before considering impeachment.
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely defended Trump's conduct — at least publicly — and echoed Trump's baseless claims that Mueller was on a "witch hunt" against him and his associates.
On Tuesday, Amash said his Republican colleagues had privately spoken to him and said, "Justin, you know, going out publicly with that, you know the Democrats will never support you, you know that they're hypocrites on this stuff."
"And I say, you know, some of them are, some of them aren't, but it doesn't matter to me," Amash said. "Because you have to look at what you're doing first. You have to care about what you're doing. And if you have a society where all we care about is that the other side is bad, and therefore we don't have to do the right thing, that society will break down and you will have no liberty."
The audience broke into applause as Amash was speaking, and he later went on to add that "the surest way to make our Constitution a dead letter is to have a society where we all hate each other ... I refuse to be a part of that. I will always stand up for liberty, and stand up for our Constitution."
ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/justin-amash-republicans-agree-impeachment-mueller-report-2019-5
- Republican Rep. Justin Amash ripped Attorney General William Barr in a lengthy Twitter thread Tuesday, accusing Barr of deliberately misrepresenting the special counsel Robert Mueller's findings in the Russia probe to shield President Donald Trump.
- Amash became the first Republican congressman earlier this month to call for Trump's impeachment in the wake of Mueller's report.
- He is also the first elected Republican to publicly skewer Barr and his handling of the Russia investigation.
- "Barr has so far successfully used his position to sell the president's false narrative to the American people," Amash wrote. "This will continue if those who have read the [Mueller] report do not start pushing back on his misrepresentations and share the truth."
GOP Rep. Justin Amash skewered Attorney General William Barr in a lengthy Twitter thread on Tuesday, and said Barr "deliberately misrepresented" aspects of the special counsel Robert Mueller's findings in the Russia probe.
Barr's actions, Amash said, "helped further the president's false narrative about the investigation."
Amash made headlines earlier this month when he became the first Republican congressman to call for President Donald Trump'simpeachment in the wake of Mueller's findings.
Amash wrote on Twitter at the time that he came to his conclusion "only after having read Mueller's redacted report carefully and completely" and reviewing relevant testimony and materials.
On Tuesday, Amash sharply criticized Barr's handling of Mueller's report, the way it was portrayed to the public, and his subsequent attempts to sugarcoat Mueller's findings in what many saw as an effort to shield Trump.
Amash wrote on Twitter that Barr's March 24 letter summarizing Mueller's findings before the report was released " selectively quotes and summarizes points in Mueller's report in misleading ways."
He said Barr quoted Mueller's letter in a way that made it seem as though Mueller could not determine whether Trump's actions amounted to obstruction of justice.
In fact, Amash pointed out, Mueller's report laid out an extensive roadmap of evidence against Trump in the obstruction case and saidprosecutors did not make a decision on whether to charge him because of a Justice Department policy that says a sitting president can't be indicted.
Amash also highlighted Mueller's subsequent concerns with the way Barr chose to characterize his findings. The special counsel wrote two letters to the attorney general voicing his frustration, and he asked Barr to release the report's introductions and executive summaries to "alleviate the misunderstandings" that stemmed from Barr's letter.
But "Barr declined," Amash wrote. "He allowed the confusion to fester and only released the materials three weeks later with the full redacted report. In the interim, Barr testified before a House committee and was misleading about his knowledge of Mueller's concerns."
Read more: Trump is said to be telling confidants he 'finally' has 'my attorney general' with William Barr
He was referring to questions Barr was asked at the time about media reports that Mueller's team was frustrated with the way he characterized their findings. Amash wrote that Barr "absurdly" denied knowing anything about it, despite having received two letters from Mueller on the topic days before the hearing.
Amash, who has a law degree from the University of Michigan, also lambasted the attorney general for falsely claiming that Mueller found "no collusion" between Trump associates and Russians.
Amash echoed the majority of legal experts when he emphasized that there's a significant difference between not having enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, and not having evidence that someone engaged in wrongful conduct.
"In truth, Mueller's report describes concerning contacts between members of Trump's campaign and people in or connected to the Russian government," Amash wrote.
For that reason, he added, "it's wrong to suggest that the fact that Mueller did not choose to indict anyone for this means there wasn't a basis to investigate whether it amounted to a crime or 'collusion'…"
Amash also said Barr was wrong when he said the White House "fully cooperated" with the investigation, given that Mueller unsuccessfully sought an interview with Trump for over a year. Trump's *******, Donald Trump Jr., also refused to testify before prosecutors.
"Barr has so far successfully used his position to sell the president's false narrative to the American people," Amash concluded. "This will continue if those who have read the report do not start pushing back on his misrepresentations and share the truth."
REF: https://www.businessinsider.com/justin-amash-william-barr-trump-russia-twitter-2019-5
* * * F A C T S * * *
The comedy team Key and Peele had a running gag in which the always-calm President Barack Obama used an “anger translator” named Luther to interpret Obama’s calm language into appropriate outrage. For example, when Obama’s character would serenely express his wishes for the conduct of foreign allies, Luther would rant about their actions with profanity.
Allow me to do the same for Robert Mueller.
On Wednesday, the special counsel spoke for the first time, using respectful and nuanced language, but his message was clear: “It’s about Russia, stupid!”
The internecine wars between Democrats and Republicans trying to interpret his report must enrage the veteran U.S. Marine. As members of Congress debate whether he should testify at an open or closed hearing, Mueller spoke for the first time—and what he apparently hopes will be the last time—about his report. He seemed determined to avoid further delay and political gamesmanship, suggesting that all he has to say appears in his report.
Translation: You don’t need me to testify if you will just read the damn report!
In his remarks, first and foremost, Mueller sought to emphasize that his investigation and report were about Russia. He started and ended his comments with Russia. Mueller stated that “Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.” He concluded the press conference by “reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere with our elections. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.” In other words, this was a military attack by a hostile foreign adversary. This was not a hoax! We need to take action to prevent it from happening again instead of worrying about whether that conclusion diminishes the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s electoral victory.
Second, Mueller discussed his obstruction of justice investigation. He explained the importance of investigating obstruction, even when no underlying crime is established: “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Translation: Yes, you can be guilty of obstruction even when no underlying crime is established. Stop saying there can be no cover-up if there was no crime to cover up.
Mueller also explained that he did not make a prosecutorial decision about obstruction because he believed from the outset that he could not file charges, citing the DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
When Mueller declined to reach a conclusion about obstruction, Attorney General William Barr did it for him, stating that prosecutors make binary decisions: charge or don’t charge. But this is a nonsensical position if you believe, as Mueller did, that you cannot charge a sitting president with a crime. In that scenario, a prosecutor can’t decide to charge.
Instead, the binary choice of a special prosecutor investigating the president is exonerate or don’t exonerate. Mueller demonstrated that he is comfortable exonerating, as he did with regard to conspiracy. It is significant that he declined to do the same with obstruction. As he said at the press conference, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
So if no charges were ever possible, what was the point of investigating at all? At the press conference, Mueller explained that while the DOJ opinion prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, it permits the investigation of the chief executive. And so Mueller did investigate “to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available.” The reason for this permission is twofold: because other individuals besides the president can be and were charged, and because the “Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
Translation: Obstruction is a big deal. We did not clear the president of obstruction, but we did not think we could charge a president. You know who can? Congress! So we preserved the evidence for Congress to consider impeachment.
Finally, Mueller thanked the attorneys, FBI agents, analysts and professional staff for their “fair and independent manner.” He referred to them as individuals “of the highest integrity.” In fact, it was out of fairness that Mueller and his team declined to even “potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no resolution of an actual charge.” Translation: This was a fair investigation by honorable people, so knock off all the talk about a coup.
He ended with, “Thank you.”
What he meant was, “You’re welcome.”
ref: https://www.thedailybeast.com/muellers-seething-message-this-isnt-a-hoax-this-is-a-crime
- The Fox News anchor Bret Baier said he was "struck" by the former special counsel Robert Mueller's Wednesday statement concerning his Russia investigation report, which Baier said contradicted President Donald Trump's claims.
- "This was not, as the president says time and time again 'no collusion, no obstruction.' It was much more nuanced than that," Baier said on Fox Wednesday afternoon.
- Baier also took a swipe at Attorney General William Barr, who controversially concluded that Trump didn't commit illegal obstruction of justice.
"I was struck by the tone and tenor of those remarks, as he laid out his case, wrapping up this report. This was not, as the president says time and time again 'no collusion, no obstruction.' It was much more nuanced than that," Baier said on Fox News Wednesday afternoon.
Baier pointed out that Mueller explicitly said that his team of investigators and prosecutors did not find that Trump clearly hadn't committed a crime — despite the president's claims to the contrary.
In his 448-page report and in his Wednesday statement, Mueller said that Department of Justice policy precluded him from accusing or charging the president with a crime. He specifically said the president had not been exonerated and pointed to it being Congress' duty to determine whether the president broke the law.
"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said in his first public statement about the two-year probe.
Baier also took a swipe at Attorney General William Barr, who controversially concluded that Trump didn't commit illegal obstruction of justice.
"It was not anywhere as clear cut as Attorney General Bill Barr said. In fact, it was almost exactly the opposite: not clear cut," he said.
ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-anchor-slams-trump-barr-over-mueller-russia-report-2019-5
nongolfer
Male
What Amash says has no impact on what the Special Counsel, or Attorney General have said. Nor does the post further any sort of logical argument, or add to the now factual basis of this thread (factual since I took it over).
Amash is entitled to his opinion, and he did say what he said. But again, it does not change what Barr and Mueller have said. At least it doesn't in a fact based world, it certainly might in an emotion based, factless world.
Since I have chosen this thread to post fact, documented fact, and reasoned speculation, let's endeavor to keep it this way please. Your attempt at a thread has failed, as evidenced by what has actually transpired, as opposed to what some wish had transpired.
And I mean this with all due respect.
Amash is entitled to his opinion, and he did say what he said. But again, it does not change what Barr and Mueller have said. At least it doesn't in a fact based world, it certainly might in an emotion based, factless world.
Since I have chosen this thread to post fact, documented fact, and reasoned speculation, let's endeavor to keep it this way please. Your attempt at a thread has failed, as evidenced by what has actually transpired, as opposed to what some wish had transpired.
And I mean this with all due respect.
and because you cant read I've increased the font for you blind mice following the orange pied piper off the short pier;
* * * F A C T S * * *
- The former special counsel Robert Mueller laid out two clear reasons on Wednesday for why he investigated President Donald Trump even though he knew he could not charge him with a crime.
- First, even though Department of Justice policy says a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mueller said he investigated Trump in order to preserve documentary evidence and witness testimony.
- Second, Mueller said DOJ policy "says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."
- In other words, Mueller left the door open to two possibilities that should worry Trump: criminal prosecution once he leaves office and a congressional impeachment proceeding.
The former special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that he did not consider charging President Donald Trump with a crime because of a longstanding Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) policy that says a sitting president cannot be indicted.
But Mueller laid out why he still spent two years investigating Trump despite knowing he could never charge him for criminal conduct.
Making his first public statement since he took over as special counsel, Mueller listed two reasons in particular that he went ahead with the investigation.
Mueller leaves the door open to Trump being prosecuted after leaving office
First, the OLC opinion "explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available," Mueller said.
That evidence could be used for other matters, such as determining whether there were coconspirators to a crime who could now be charged.
"The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office," Mueller's team said in its report, which was released with light redactions last month. "Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."
Mueller alludes to impeachment
Second, Mueller said on Wednesday, "the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."
In other words, Mueller investigated Trump to preserve evidence — which leaves the door open to criminal prosecution once Trump leaves office — and to inform a potential impeachment proceeding against Trump.
The former FBI director emphasized clearly that the reason prosecutors didn't consider charging Trump was because of the OLC opinion, and not because of a lack of evidence against him.
Indeed, Mueller's team laid out an extensive road map of evidence against Trump in the obstruction case in their final report, highlighting 11 potential instances of obstruction of justice by the president.
But "under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office," Mueller said. "Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited."
He added, "Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
Critically, he reiterated his final report in the investigation and added, "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/2-reasons-why-mueller-investigated-trump-couldnt-charge-him-2019-5
nongolfer
Male
And yet, why weren't co-conspirators indicted? Co-conspirators on both conspiracy and obstruction? Are they somehow immune from prosecution as is a sitting POTUS?
When common sense and facts (as we know them today) are applied, these theories fall apart very, very quickly.
But keep hope alive. Keep hope alive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
When common sense and facts (as we know them today) are applied, these theories fall apart very, very quickly.
But keep hope alive. Keep hope alive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
* * * F A C T S * * *
- Several congressional committees are investigating different aspects of President Donald Trump.
- Some are probing actions since Trump became president, while others are digging into election security or his personal finances.
- The committees are being met with significant resistance as the administration has signaled they are not at all eager to participate in what Trump has often described as "presidential harassment."
In addition to a lasting probe in the Senate, Democrats are looking into Trump and his surroundings from every angle by using their newfound power after taking back the House majority in 2018 midterm elections.
Each committee has unique jurisdictions and oversight objectives, creating an expanding number of investigations into Trump. Here are the committees still probing the president's affairs.
House Judiciary Committee
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
The House Judiciary Committee is digging into the findings of the special counsel's now-concluded investigation. They have been met with resistance from the Trump administration.
The committee's investigation reached a boiling point when the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents.
Read more:Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress, one of the most severe congressional actions. Here's what the historic move means.
House Intelligence Committee
House Intelligence Chairman and California Rep. Adam Schiff. Alex Wong/Getty Images
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, reopened their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Schiff has frequently gotten under Trump's skin with his probes. The committee is also conducting similar investigations to the Judiciary Committee.
House Oversight and Reform Committee
Oversight chairman and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The House Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, is looking into potential malpractice in how security clearances have been issued in the White House since Trump took office.
The committee is also probing Trump's finances by investigating Mazars USA, the president's accounting firm. A federal judgerecently ordered Mazars USA to comply with subpoenas for Trump's records.
House Financial Services Committee
Rep. Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The House Financial Services Committee is investigating Trump's connections with Deutsche Bank, in addition to whether any financial crimes were committed.
The committee's chairwoman, California Rep. Maxine Waters, hasrepeatedly enraged Trump, prompting him to lash out on Twitter and mock her.
House Committee on Ways & Means
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the Ways & Means chairman. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The House Committee on Ways & Means is Congress' oldest committee and where all tax writing happens. But the committee is in a unique spot over the fight to obtain and review Trump's personal tax returns.
The committee has so far failed to claw Trump's taxes from the IRS, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin interceding each requestto claim the Ways & Means Chairman Rep. Richard Neal has no such authority.
Read more: Democrats want to make Trump's tax returns public. Here's how.
Senate Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The only Republican-led investigation is from the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr.
Burr has been slowly conducting a bipartisan investigation into the Russian interference and election security. But the committee angered Republicans and allies of the president when Burr authorized a subpoena for Trump's *******, Donald Trump Jr.
ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/mue...ations-2019-5#senate-intelligence-committee-6
nongolfer
Male
Double jeopardy on several of these. Outside of violating one's civil liberties, I'll grant there are a couple that could yield results. But it is a stretch. For very, very obvious reasons.
You, are not going to be happy with the facts I'm going to keep posting in this thread for the next 18-24 months. Go ahead and keep posting extremely speculative theory, and we will all soon see who is closer to the truth as this plays out.
You, are not going to be happy with the facts I'm going to keep posting in this thread for the next 18-24 months. Go ahead and keep posting extremely speculative theory, and we will all soon see who is closer to the truth as this plays out.
* * * F A C T S * * *
BY RYAN TEAGUE BECKWITH
UPDATED: MARCH 24, 2019 5:25 PM ET | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: MARCH 22, 2019
Since his appointment in May of 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller racked up a lengthy record of court wins, but none of them answered some of the central questions the public had about his investigation into potential collusion between President Donald Trump or his campaign and Russia.
Along with a team of experienced prosecutors and attorneys, the former FBI director has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. The charges range from interfering with the 2016 election and hacking emails to lying to investigators and tampering with witnesses.
But Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for anyone on one of the biggest questions he faced: whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election.
Mueller’s report, which he submitted to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, did not conclude that Trump or anyone involved in his campaign colluded with Russia, according to a summary Barr delivered to Congress on Sunday. (Mueller’s report left open the question of whether Trump obstructed justice in the course of the investigation, according to Barr’s summary.)
Even before Mueller filed his report, he had referred several related cases to career prosecutors in the Justice Department, and may have made other referrals that have not yet become public, though they would not focus on the central parts of his investigation.
According to Barr’s letter to Congress, there were no instances in which Mueller wanted to bring charges against someone but was overruled by the Justice Department.
At least one person was unlikely to face charges from Mueller from the start: Trump himself. Two memos from the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, written during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, take the view that a sitting president is immune from prosecution. (Some argue the memos are wrong about the underlying constitutional issue, but Mueller is unlikely to break with tradition.)
Here’s an overview of all the indictments, guilty pleas and convictions resulting from Mueller’s investigation.
The Key Players
Russian troll farm: Charged with distributing Russian propaganda
A view of the four-story building known as the "troll farm" in St. Petersburg, Russia on Feb. 17, 2018.
Mueller’s most sweeping charges are unlikely to lead to any convictions. In 2018, he charged the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm, with meddling in the 2016 election. In an unusually detailed 37-page indictment, he spelled out how the Russians allegedly tricked Americans into following fake social media accounts filled with pro-Trump and anti-Clinton propaganda. The indictment also named two shell companies and 13 Russian nationals, including Yevgeniy Prigozhin, who has been nicknamed “Putin’s chef” for his ties to the Russian president. It’s unlikely that any of the Russians will ever face a trial in the United States, but the charges make it harder for them to travel overseas.
Russian spies: Charged with stealing Democratic emails
Russian President Vladimir Putin talks during his informal meeting with the 'Leaders of Russia' contest winners at the Kremlin on March 19, 2019 in Moscow, Russia.
Mueller’s second big set of charges was of 12 Russian military intelligence officers. The similarly detailed 29-page indictment explains how the hackers allegedly used phishing attacks to steal files from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign, then worked with WikiLeaks to distribute the information to damage Clinton’s candidacy in an effort to help Trump win. It also explains how cryptocurrency was allegedly used to pay for the effort, as well as other attempts to penetrate state elections websites. These charges are also unlikely to ever lead to a trial in the United States.
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes
Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at US District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Mandel Ngan—AFP/Getty Images
If there are direct connections between the Russian efforts and the Trump campaign, one potential contact might have been campaign chairman Paul Manafort. A longtime Republican consultant, Manafort worked overseas in recent years, including for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine. Mueller charged Manafort with hiding tens of millions of dollars he earned for that work and lying to banks to get loans. In August, a jury in Virginia found Manafort guilty on eight counts. (It was unable to reach a verdict on 10 other counts.) Manafort then pleaded guilty on related charges in a D.C. court and began cooperating with Mueller. However, prosecutors later said he breached their agreement by lying to them, and Manafort was sentenced to a total of seven and a half years in prison.
Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice
On the other side, a possible point of contact might be Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI believes has ties to Russian intelligence. A former employee of Manafort’s firm, Kilimnik was sometimes described as “Manafort’s Manafort,” while Manafort reportedly called him “my Russian brain.” A poorly redacted court filing from Mueller’s team inadvertently revealed that Manafort gave Kilimnik detailed polling information during the campaign and discussed a Ukrainian peace plan, then lied about both to Mueller, even when he was supposedly cooperating. Mueller charged Kilimnik with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice for allegedly attempting witness tampering during the Manafort investigation.
Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress
Roger Stone throws up peace signs outside court on Jan. 25, 2019 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Joshua Prezant—AFP/Getty Images
Another possible point of contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian efforts is longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone. Mueller charged him with lying to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 about his contacts with WikiLeaks and tampering with a key witness who could discredit his version of events. The indictment does not say what Mueller knows about Stone’s contacts or how they relate to WikiLeaks’ release of Clinton emails; for now, it raises as many questions as it answers. Stone has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for November.
The Cooperators
Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators
Michael Flynn departs the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse following a pre-sentencing hearing on July 10, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Aaron P. Bernstein—Getty Images
As a foreign policy adviser on the Trump campaign, a member of the presidential transition and the first National Security Adviser in the Trump Administration, Michael Flynn had valuable insight into key moments in the investigation. In 2017 he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations with then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and agreed to cooperate with the investigation. A year later, he asked a federal judge to delay his sentencing so that he could have more of an opportunity to assist the probes. Mueller’s team asked for him to receive little to no jail time, a sign that they viewed his cooperation as helpful.
Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators
Rick Gates leaves the Federal Court on Dec. 11, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Brendan Smialowski—AFP/Getty Images
Another valuable source of information for Mueller was Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime business partner, a top aide on the Trump campaign and deputy chairman of the presidential inauguration committee. Facing up to six years in prison, Gates pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to investigators and conspiring to commit other offenses. He agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation. Earlier this month, prosecutors asked for the fifth time that his sentencing be delayed, citing his continued cooperation in “several ongoing investigations.”
Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress
Michael Cohen testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill, on Feb. 27, 2019.
Cheriss May—NurPhoto/Getty Images
As Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen had insight into Trump’s business and political efforts, including paying porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Trump. Since it was not related to his main targets, Mueller handed the investigation into Cohen to the Southern District of New York. Cohen pleaded guilty to various financial crimes related to his taxi medallion business and other personal matters, as well as a campaign-finance violation for the hush-money payments. (Trump, who was named in the charges as Individual 1, is considered by some to be an unindicted co-conspirator in this case and could face charges when he’s out of office. He has denied any campaign finance violation.) Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his work on the Trump Tower Moscow project during the campaign and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation.
Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators
George Papadopoulos arrives at US District Court for his sentencing in Washington, DC on Sept. 7, 2018.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds—AFP/Getty Images
Although he was a minor figure in the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos played a key role in launching the FBI investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia that predated Mueller’s appointment. After he told an Australian diplomat in a bar that the Russians might have damaging information on Clinton, the diplomat passed the information to the FBI. When prosecutors first approached him in January of 2017, Papadopoulos repeatedly lied about his contacts with Russian agents. He pleaded guilty to lying to investigators and was sentenced to 14 days in prison, a year of probation and a $9,500 fine. He was released from a minimum-security facility after 12 days with credit for time spent in jail after being indicted.
The Minor Figures
Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators
Alex Van der Zwaan leaves the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, USA on Feb. 20, 2018.
Samuel Corum—Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with Rick Gates and an unnamed person in Ukraine. He served 30 days in jail and was deported from the United States.
Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft
A California man who ran a website selling dummy bank accounts to eBay and Facebook, Richard Pinedo pleaded guilty to identity theft as part of the investigation into Russian hackers. He was sentenced to six months in prison and six months of home detention.
Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist
Sam Patten leaves the U.S. District Court on Aug. 31, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee—Getty Images
After investigating Republican lobbyist Sam Patten, Mueller’s team handed the case to career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. There, he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a lobbyist for Ukrainian clients while working with Kilimnik, helping a client get around restrictions on foreign donations in order to get tickets to Trump’s inauguration, and misleading congressional investigators.
Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws
Mueller’s team referred Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin, two former associates of Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, to federal prosecutors in Virginia, who charged them with conspiracy to violate federal lobbying rules for their work on behalf of a Turkish campaign to expel a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Alptekin was also charged with lying to investigators.
Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors
Mueller’s team also referred three high-powered Washington insiders to federal prosecutors in New York for investigations into violations of foreign lobbying laws: former Obama Administration White House Counsel Gregory Craig, former Republican Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, and Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager. They have not been charged with any crimes.
ref: http://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
* * * F A C T S * * *
STILL MORE INDICTMENTS TO COME & ADD TO THE LIST OF CO-CONSPIRATORS
STILL MORE INDICTMENTS TO COME & ADD TO THE LIST OF CO-CONSPIRATORS
- Miller’s arguments against Mueller came up short with a federal district court judge and an appeals court panel in Washington. The former Stone aide faced a stark choice in recent days: testify or take the battle to the Supreme Court and accept the near certainty of being sent to the D.C. jail for contempt of court.
05/29/2019 02:54 PM EDT
A former aide to political operative Roger Stone appears to have given up a yearlong quest to challenge special counsel Robert Mueller’s authority by resisting a grand jury subpoena.
The aide, Andrew Miller, threw in the towel Wednesday just as Mueller made a brief but keenly watched public statement a few blocks away marking the end of his investigation.
Miller’s arguments against Mueller came up short with a federal district court judge and an appeals court panel in Washington. The former Stone aide faced a stark choice in recent days: testify or take the battle to the Supreme Court and accept the near certainty of being sent to the D.C. jail for contempt of court.
Miller’s pro bono attorney, Paul Kamenar of the National Legal Policy Center, said Miller agreed to appear later this week before a grand jury that was previously attached to Mueller’s probe but is now being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
“We decided to come to the grand jury on Friday,” Kamenar said. “I don’t know what they want him to testify about.”
Kamenar said he received an email earlier this week from Aaron Zelinsky, a former attorney on Mueller’s team who now works for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C., saying prosecutors want Miller to testify about his dealings with Stone from 2016 to the present.
Stone was indicted in January on charges of lying to Congress and the FBI about his dealings with WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting a trial, set for November.
Under Justice Department policy and court rulings, grand juries are not supposed to be used to investigate a criminal case that’s already been filed, although they can be used to add new charges or to charge new defendants.
“If they’re investigating other crimes then I don’t know what else they’re looking at,” Kamenar said.
Kamenar argued before Chief U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell and the appeals court that Mueller’s appointment was invalid because he was wielding so much authority that he required a nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate. The conservative attorney also contended that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal did not give former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein the power to name Mueller as special counsel.
Howell rejected the arguments last year, but she wasn’t entirely dismissive, saying Kamenar raised “legitimate questions.”
In February, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel turned aside Miller’s appeal.
During a hearing Wednesday, Howell denied Miller’s motion to set aside previous rulings in the case and she ordered him to appear before the grand jury Friday at 9:30 a.m. She stayed her earlier contempt order until that time and ordered prosecutors to report to her by next week whether Miller was in compliance with the grand jury’s requests.
ref: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/andrew-miller-roger-stone-mueller-investigation-1346688
Trickle-down Trump-nomics explained
ITS HUGE...
That sucking sound of the deficit of course.
I'm a fiscal conservative so I don't agree with Democratic big Government spending but even what Trump and the GOP majority is doing now is beyond ridiculous. At least Clinton and Obama although with a REPUB controlled congress managed to shrink the deficit when they both left office. This is totally disastrous when you have one party in control. You can see signs portending to a major crash ahead.
Halfway through Donald Trump’s first term, it’s getting easier to piece together an account of how his policies are supposed to drive economic growth.
And the economy is, in fact, expanding pretty fast –- but not necessarily for the reasons Trump said it would. The president promised to squeeze more American growth out of businesses and foreigners. Instead it’s the government, deploying its balance sheet via deficit-spending, that’s doing the work.
The theoretical version of how Trumponomics would succeed might look something like this: After inheriting the most lopsided U.S. recovery of modern times, in which households contributed a record share, Trump would summon reinforcements from two directions.
Household-Dependent
Contributions to growth during U.S. expansions
Households = private consumption + residential investment. Everything Else = private non-residential investment + government spending + net exports
First, he’d get tough with U.S. counterparties, friend or foe -- reducing the drag from trade, and maybe even turning it to a plus. Second, he’d revive the long-dormant enthusiasm for investing among American companies, by lowering their tax burden (as well as slapping tariffs on their foreign rivals.)
It hasn’t quite worked out that way.
Trump's Bump
The economy has expanded at an average pace of 2.82% under Trump compared with 2.19% during the Obama recovery, a difference of 0.63 basis points. Here's where the extra growth came from.
Neither foreigners nor business investment have come to the rescue. Trade cut into the expansion by the most in more than 30 years last quarter. Corporate spending on plant and equipment unexpectedly fell in November, according to data published Friday, and it’s been essentially flat as a component of growth.
One of World Trade’s Top Prognosticators Is Worried About 2019
Trump’s policies could deliver gains in those areas over the longer run. The latest numbers on business investment were disappointing, but it’s early to judge the effects of Trump’s fiscal policy, said Stephen Moore, the co-author of the recent book “Trumponomics” and an adviser to Trump in 2016. “I totally reject this idea that the economy is on a sugar high,” he said. “The tax cuts are just kicking in.”
But right now, the motor is fiscal loosening.
Under Trump, spending has picked up sharply, while tax cuts eroded revenue. The result is budget shortfalls that are almost unprecedented during an upswing, like the one just announced for November -- and an American economy that’s growing in tandem with the deficit.
As Goes the Deficit…
...so goes the economy. They're growing in parallel under Trump.
Four-quarter moving averages for quarterly growth and deficits.
| What Our Economists Say “Normally the deficit widens in contractions and narrows in expansions -- otherwise described as being countercyclical. However, since 2016, the deficit has turned procyclical, widening as the economy continued to expand.” “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which led to the biggest drop in corporate revenues outside recessions since the late 60s, and the Bipartisan Budget Act, which greatly increased expenditures, have both exacerbated this effect. Those two pieces of legislation have no doubt lifted economic activity in 2018 -- and could provide some additional stimulus next year, albeit at a diminishing rate.” -- Tim Mahedy, Bloomberg Economics (Read more: Deficit to Top $1 Trillion Before CBO Predicts) |
Remember Reagan?
If the Trump trajectory sounds familiar, it should. Ronald Reagan also talked about getting the government out of the way -- while running up large deficits, and spending more federal cash (as a share of the economy) than any U.S. president since the immediate aftermath of World War II.
Most economists say that Trump’s deficit-spending is unnecessary while the economy is doing well, and will store up problems by blowing up the U.S. national debt. That’s been a widespread view among politicians too. But there’s a growing number of dissidents.
The incoming Congress will feature a bloc of left-wing Democrats who have no real problem with the size of Trump’s deficits (though they’d distribute the proceeds very differently, backing universal healthcare or free college over military spending and tax cuts for the rich). They’re spoiling for a fight with the party’s more fiscally conservative leadership -– and they might even win it. America’s new left, like Trump, has little appetite for belt-tightening.
‘King of Debt’
Also gaining traction is a school of economics, known as Modern Monetary Theory, which argues that governments borrowing in their own currencies can’t go bust.
The U.S. can always create dollars to pay its dollar creditors, they say, so the only risk of too much government debt is inflation. It’s more dangerous when households and companies go on a borrowing spree -- as they did in the years before private debt crashed the economy in 2008.
In the decade since then, American’s public debt has ballooned -- without much immediate or obvious damage. There’s little sign right now of a surge in prices, or red flags in Treasury markets.
Don't Panic...
...take the long view. U.S. inflation and federal borrowing costs are low (for now).
Trump says he presides over the best economy ever. He doesn’t dwell much on its underpinnings in fiscal deficits, devoting more time to explaining how he’ll boost trade and business. Still, the president who once called himself the “king of debt’’ is probably aware that borrowing costs for his government, by historical standards, remain cheap.
— With assistance by Jordan Yadoo
ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...wth-under-trumponomics-looks-like-debt-so-far
nongolfer
Male
And not one indictment or conviction related to either Russian conspiracy, or obstruction by Trump. Not one post countering my posted facts.
As I said, I'll keep posting facts, well, becuase they are real, and you keep posting speculation. I'll live and thrive in a fact based world, and what you do is up to you.
As I said, I'll keep posting facts, well, becuase they are real, and you keep posting speculation. I'll live and thrive in a fact based world, and what you do is up to you.
you are a legend in your own mind...…..I do not recall you ever posting anything factual.....and if you go back and look at your past few pages of comments.....they are just comments about the facts you post....you have been shown to be a fake more than once on this site.....and you have not changed!
you took over this thread making it factual?.....all you have done is run your mouth with nothing to substantiate your claims...apparently you didn't look at read or listen to Mueller's final comments....as for the republican senator he was citing things right out of Mueller's report
your problem….you suffer from blind ignorance!....and an ego befitting someone who has accomplished something unlike your self
nongolfer
Male
Link to where I have been shown to have posted something fake please? You stated it, it should be easy enough to find.
I am not going to do your research on something that doesn't exist...…...tell you what you claim to be the one with the truth on this thread.....about something factual you have posted...WITH A LINK...not just shooting off your mouth...surely you can remember saying something and posting a link....surely there is one.....show us...out of all your rambling and boasting...just one factual statement with a link...
Similar threads
- Poll
