The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Rip]

Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Trump's first and main foreign policy goal at the RNC convention and in January 2017 was eliminating sanctions.

Wanting something and delivering something are miles apart. Transaction isn't complete until payment is made. There is a reason the cops always wait for the actual exchange of the money. Hell Menendez actually delivered on what he was paid for and still didn't get shit for it.

Conspiracy to commit treason is still a conspiracy.

Wake me when the Manafort(or any other) indictments include anything of the sort. I would think if there is some conspiracy convictions coming some people would be charged with such, but alas they are not.

[hepcat]

Oh, don't worry. We will.

[Rip]

So much for the payoff.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/30/trump-say ... ain-as-is/

With his record on Russia under scrutiny after the summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump on Monday insisted that the United States will not drop sanctions against Moscow.

“Sanctions on Russia will remain as is,” Trump said, even as Putin demands that they be dropped.

[Pyperkub]

Inside the disinformation campaign which rip loves to post

[hepcat]

So much for the payoff.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/30/trump-say ... ain-as-is/

With his record on Russia under scrutiny after the summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump on Monday insisted that the United States will not drop sanctions against Moscow.

“Sanctions on Russia will remain as is,” Trump said, even as Putin demands that they be dropped.

You do realize that the opening part of your quote explains exactly why he's doing that? If you're under suspicion of stealing from the cookie jar, you don't stand near the cookie jar again until things die down.

It's also the reason he called off that impromptu meeting in Washington with Putin. He's waiting for the heat to die down, my man.

[Isgrimnur]

The Hill

An appeals court on Monday rejected Paul Manafort’s request to end his pre-trial detention ahead of the former Trump campaign chairman's second trial in Washington, D.C.
...
An appellate court Washington, D.C. upheld the judge's order, which said that Manafort "was unlikely to abide by any conditions the District Court might impose, including the 'most fundamental condition of release . . . that he not commit [additional] crime during the period of release.’”
...
The ruling on Manafort's pre-trial detention arrived the same day as he goes to trial in Virginia on bank and tax fraud charges.

Manafort is set to appear in court in D.C. in September on another series of charges, including obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice and illegal foreign lobbying.

[Blackhawk]

So much for the payoff.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/30/trump-say ... ain-as-is/

With his record on Russia under scrutiny after the summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump on Monday insisted that the United States will not drop sanctions against Moscow.

“Sanctions on Russia will remain as is,” Trump said, even as Putin demands that they be dropped.

You do realize that the opening part of your quote explains exactly why he's doing that? If you're under suspicion of stealing from the cookie jar, you don't stand near the cookie jar again until things die down.

It's also the reason he called off that impromptu meeting in Washington with Putin. He's waiting for the heat to die down, my man.

Don't forget that the core of the point attempting to be made is based on a " Trump said." What Trump says doesn't reflect anything but how he wiggles his lips while exhaling. It isn't policy, it isn't reality, and it is only true until the next time "Trump said" something about it.
That's about as meaningful as a source claiming something his tarot cards said.

[El Guapo]

So much for the payoff.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/30/trump-say ... ain-as-is/

With his record on Russia under scrutiny after the summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump on Monday insisted that the United States will not drop sanctions against Moscow.

“Sanctions on Russia will remain as is,” Trump said, even as Putin demands that they be dropped.

You do realize that the opening part of your quote explains exactly why he's doing that? If you're under suspicion of stealing from the cookie jar, you don't stand near the cookie jar again until things die down.

It's also the reason he called off that impromptu meeting in Washington with Putin. He's waiting for the heat to die down, my man.

Also much of the sanctions on Russia are codified in statute, which means that Trump can't remove all Russian sanctions unilaterally. Of course, there's plenty of evidence of Trump de facto gutting or refusing to effectively implement the sanctions, but he can't literally remove them without Congress going along (which, even as spineless as they are, they can't do in public view).

[El Guapo]

The Hill

An appeals court on Monday rejected Paul Manafort’s request to end his pre-trial detention ahead of the former Trump campaign chairman's second trial in Washington, D.C.
...
An appellate court Washington, D.C. upheld the judge's order, which said that Manafort "was unlikely to abide by any conditions the District Court might impose, including the 'most fundamental condition of release . . . that he not commit [additional] crime during the period of release.’”
...
The ruling on Manafort's pre-trial detention arrived the same day as he goes to trial in Virginia on bank and tax fraud charges.

Manafort is set to appear in court in D.C. in September on another series of charges, including obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice and illegal foreign lobbying.

God, judges are such whiny nitpickers some time. "Don't commit more crimes while waiting for the trial for your current crimes" - what a hard-ass.

[Isgrimnur]

I guess someone's not realy happy about the Manafort trial:

Trump's tweet came before the trial of ex-campaign chief Paul Manafort entered its second day in federal court in Virginia. Manafort is being tried by Mueller's team.

Spoiler:

..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!

[Captain Caveman]

Uh, Sessions recused himself. Mueller is Rosenstein's call. He knows this right? Sessions is just an easier punching bag I guess.

[Smoove_B]

When the walls are closing in, it gets harder and harder to think straight.

[El Guapo]

When the walls are closing in, it gets harder and harder to think straight.

Also when one is an idiot.

[Kraken]

I thought there were only 13 angry democrats. When did they pick up four more?

[Smoove_B]

When the walls are closing in, it gets harder and harder to think straight.

Also when one is an idiot.

I mean, really. Last week it was determined that Mueller was using Trump's Tweets to determine whether or not he was putting pressure on Sessions to obstruct justice.

Not even a week later, he's doing exactly what the news media reported he's being investigated for. It's unreal.

Let's see what his star attorney thinks:

Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer in the case, Rudolph W. Giuliani, dismissed Mr. Mueller’s interest in the tweets as part of a desperate quest to sink the president.

“If you’re going to obstruct justice, you do it quietly and secretly, not in public,” Mr. Giuliani said.

Or, you might think - if this is what he's willing to do publicly, imagine what's happening behind closed doors.

[Alefroth]

I thought there were only 13 angry democrats. When did they pick up four more?

He's mixing them up with the Lying intelligence agencies.

[El Guapo]

I thought there were only 13 angry democrats. When did they pick up four more?

First of all, it's Angry Democrats. Show some respect.

Second, I think Trump addressed this in a recent tweet. It was something like "...17 Angry Democrats (there were 13, then they got more)" or something along those lines. Not sure if Mueller actually added staff or not.

[TheMix]

I thought there were only 13 angry democrats. When did they pick up four more?

He's mixing them up with the Lying intelligence agencies.

Or it's just more evidence of his pathological need to inflate/exaggerate numbers.

[LordMortis]

When the walls are closing in, it gets harder and harder to think straight.

Also when one is an idiot.

I can personally vouch for that.

[Grifman]

I have to conclude that Manafort has been promised a pardon by Trump. From what I have read, it’s pretty obvious that he’s going to be convicted. When you have large deposits in your accounts but no taxes paid, well that’s not hard for a jury to understand. There’s just no way he get’s off. So why hasn’t he made a deal? It can only be due to a promise of a pardon. If so, then all hell will break loose. We live in interesting times.

[LawBeefaroni]

I have to conclude that Manafort has been promised a pardon by Trump. From what I have read, it’s pretty obvious that he’s going to be convicted. When you have large deposits in your accounts but no taxes paid, well that’s not hard for a jury to understand. There’s just no way he get’s off. So why hasn’t he made a deal? It can only be due to a promise of a pardon. If so, then all hell will break loose. We live in interesting times.

Well, I wouldn't put it past Trump to renege on the promise of a pardon either. I mean what happens once there's a conviction and no pardon? "Um, hey, wait, I actually wanted a deal..."

[Isgrimnur]

Pack it in, boys. It's all over.

ABC

The judge in the trial of onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is telling prosecutors not to use the word "oligarch" to describe wealthy Ukrainians who paid millions to Manafort for his work as an international political consultant.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III says oligarch has a "pejorative" meaning and using it isn't relevant to the bank fraud and tax evasion charges against Manafort.

The judge also is cautioning lawyers for special counsel Robert Mueller that the term could imply that Manafort was associating with "despicable" people and therefore guilty himself.

In Ellis' words: "That's not the American way."

Ellis notes that wealthy Democratic donor George Soros or one of the conservative Koch (kohk) brothers could qualify as oligarchs.

Ellis' comments on the second day of Manafort's trial weren't made in front of the jury.

[LordMortis]

He is the victim of a WITCH HUNT. NO COLLUSION. So of course there will be a pardon. But in this information age, he can't write the history books. This will be remembered and documented. What that means, remains to be seen, I guess.

[malchior]

Pack it in, boys. It's all over.

ABC

The judge in the trial of onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is telling prosecutors not to use the word "oligarch" to describe wealthy Ukrainians who paid millions to Manafort for his work as an international political consultant.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III says oligarch has a "pejorative" meaning and using it isn't relevant to the bank fraud and tax evasion charges against Manafort.

The judge also is cautioning lawyers for special counsel Robert Mueller that the term could imply that Manafort was associating with "despicable" people and therefore guilty himself.

In Ellis' words: "That's not the American way."

Ellis notes that wealthy Democratic donor George Soros or one of the conservative Koch (kohk) brothers could qualify as oligarchs.

Ellis' comments on the second day of Manafort's trial weren't made in front of the jury.

Absurd. The prosecution should just say the 'very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence' in place of it.

More detail - it makes it even fucking stupider. Seriously sometimes you have to wonder where these people come from. Maybe they just need to call someone from the CIA or FBI to the stand to define how they use the word to describe political power in Russia and Russian adjacent regions. WTF.

But the judge took particular offense to the term “oligarch,” which prosecutor Greg Andres used yesterday in reference to those financing Viktor Yanukovych’s campaign. Ever the traditionalist, Ellis referred to the definition of “oligarchy,” where power resides in a select few.

“I suppose high schools are oligarchies in that sense,” Ellis said.

He said that use of the term “oligarch” implies Manafort is consorting with criminals, and there will be no evidence presented to the court about them. “The only thing we know is that they have a lot of money.”

So do George Soros and the Koch brothers, he added, but they wouldn’t be referred to as “oligarchs.”

He added that the term has taken on a “pejorative” connotation.

Andres tried to counter, but Ellis told him to “find another term to use” and suggested “he financed it.” He told Andres he could submit a brief explaining why he needs to use the word, which Andres indicated he would do.

“Nobody would refer to the principal of a high school as an oligarch,” but it could fit the definition, Ellis said.

[El Guapo]

eh, I kind of get where the judge is coming from. Oligarch is a somewhat vague and pretty pejorative, meaning something along the lines of "rich and shady persons connected to a government", or something like that. It's not clear cut, but I think the judge's position here is defensible.

[malchior]

Fair - though there is this additional bit I just saw.



"...Oligarch is defined as despotic power exercised by a privileged few...

I suppose you could define the word that way but I severely doubt the layperson does. It certainly seems like he is bending over backwards to define this word in a perjorative way. Maybe he is protecting against an appeal but it also smacks of someone who is a bit out of touch with the important grounding the case requires. Such as how that region operates. Still we'll see I suppose. Everything he does will be highly scrutinized so it is reasonable to believe he is just being (over)careful.

[LordMortis]

eh, I kind of get where the judge is coming from. Oligarch is a somewhat vague and pretty pejorative, meaning something along the lines of "rich and shady persons connected to a government", or something like that. It's not clear cut, but I think the judge's position here is defensible.

Ditto. Word connotations shouldn't influence the weight of the criminal proceedings. I get why a prosecutor would want to charge the language but I also would get why the defense would want to put a stop to that shit and why judge would be on the defense side.

All that being the case, my vision in to courtroom is very small, so there may be other things going on. *shrug*

[Smoove_B]

The only word that matters is conspiracy.

[malchior]

Ditto. Word connotations shouldn't influence the weight of the criminal proceedings. I get why a prosecutor would want to charge the language but I also would get why the defense would want to put a stop to that shit and why judge would be on the defense side.

That's the rub. Everyone was using oligarch including the defense and witnesses. Because it is a commonly used term. But whatever. By the accounts I've read, the judge took it on himself to make a point of it irrespective of everyone seemingly being ok with using it.

[stessier]

I'd be shocked if more than 1 person the jury could correctly define oligarch.

[El Guapo]

Well, this is sort of weird. I 100% agree that the word "oligarch" is pejorative - one does not think of oligarchs doing generous, selfless things. Oligarch definitely isn't the same thing as criminal, though (especially since oligarchs are kind of by definition in bed with the government).

[ImLawBoy]

I don't think it's a bad thing for a judge to try to set a neutral tone for a criminal trial, though, even when the defense counsel isn't being smart enough to request it. (If you wanted to be a conspiracy theorist, you could argue that the defense counsel was using the term as well in order to establish an ineffective counsel appeal, but that goes a little far for my taste.)

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo on Judge Ellis

[LawBeefaroni]

Bookkeeper testimony in Manafort trial:

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's longtime bookkeeper testified Thursday that Manafort was in serious financial trouble in 2016 after his lobbying business dried up, and he and his deputy Rick Gates sent several fake, inflated income business statements to banks.
...

She walked the court through what the yearly profit and loss statements her company prepared for Manafort's DMP should have looked like. But the income statements that DMP provided to the banks that gave it loans were rife with misspellings, used different fonts and headers, omitted corporate disclaimers and left out some numbers the bookkeeper would have included.

One side-by-side of documents showed [bookkeeper] Washkuhn's company telling Federal Savings Bank that Manafort's company DMP International had lost $1.11 million in the first 11 months of 2016.

But Manafort then sent the same person at the bank, Dennis Raico, a financial statement for the first nine months of the year that said his company made $3 million.

Federal Savings Bank ultimately loaned to DMP when its executive Stephen Calk sought a Trump campaign position.

Ridiculous.

[Holman]

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

"NO YES COLLUSION!"

Is the best part calling it Fake News while confirming the truth of what he has been calling Fake News?

Or is the best part throwing Don Jr. under the bus?

[Daehawk]

His tweets verge on hate speech. Lots of outright lies. Wish they'd ban his orange ass.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The sound you hear is Trump’s lawyers banging their heads on their desks.

But I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised - Giuliani tested the everyone-would-do-it defense last week.

[Holman]

Whenever Trump tweets out a casual confession, it's usually an attempt to get out ahead of something that's coming.

Maybe we're going to hear more confirmation this week about the Trump Tower meetings. Then Giuliani can go on Fox and say "This isn't bad at all. The president was already owning it before the news came out. Big nothingburger."

[Smoove_B]

Or is the best part throwing Don Jr. under the bus?

Did he really just confirm that the pretense of this meeting wasn't about adoption issues? Am I reading that right?

[Unagi]

I was thinking the same thing.


He also just (re)declared he knew nothing about the meeting, when I believe just the other day Giuliani admitted/revealed/suggested that "Cohen was talking about a 'Prep for that meeting - meeting' that Trump had attended..."
edit:
Right? wrong.
I guess he spilled the beans about Cohen saying this meeting happened. but he says it never happened...

/shrug