The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Carpet_pissr]

[Remus West]

He probably canceled the meeting because he received word that Russia will not be accepting assylum seeker from the US in the near future no matter how much he puckers up.

[Jaymann]

And exactly why did President Carter have to sell his peanut farm?

[pr0ner]

Mr Fed changed the name of Popehat Twitter today to OkayMaybeItsRICOHat.

[malchior]

Mr Fed changed the name of Popehat Twitter today to OkayMaybeItsRICOHat.

It definitely feels like they're building a case piece by piece here and Trump is such a fucking moron that you have to assume that his criminal conspiracy is amateur hour compared to tougher nuts like established organized crime syndicates.

[GreenGoo]

I love how a man who blatantly lies several times a day wants us to believe him when he says it's the other guy that's not telling the truth.

Holy shit, I just a teaching moment with my autistic kid about reputation, credibility and trustworthiness. He has a long history of lying about any and everything, even things that are meaningless or actually make things worse for him (like, if we believed the lie it's worse than if we thought he was lying) and recently had a he said/she said with her sister and became quite upset when we didn't immediately believe him over her.

It's actually much more complicated than that, and one of the things I've tried to do is make sure he knows I trust him and take him at his word instead of expressing skepticism and disbelief, so that when the truth comes out he can see just how badly he's betrayed my trust in him. I mean, if I lie to my wife and my wife doesn't believe me but lets it go anyway, what's to stop me from just lying all the time? The lie may not work but nothing bad happens, and it might work, so why not?

At the same time, I feel like I can't drop the hammer on him because the nature of his lying often seems counter-intuitive and perhaps not always intended to deceive, maliciously. I'm not saying it's out of his control, but sometimes it seems spontaneous and not thought through. I really don't want to bring draconian measures to bear over whether he's brushed his teeth or not. Or whether he's changed his socks to clean ones. Making matters worse, his brother and sister are treated more traditionally, so the enforcement of the rules are not completely even. We have different expectations for the kids and they are at different levels of development. You don't ground a 5 year old for lying about taking a cookie, while you might do so for a 14 year old who had been explicitly told not to take a cookie and did it anyway then lied about it. That's sort of the unevenness I'm talking about.

In any case, the point of this post is that my 12 year old autistic kid is learning about credibility and how it plays into the perception of trustworthiness. Sure, *this* time might be the truth, but you said the exact same thing last time when it wasn't, so how can I trust you? Trust is earned, dude.

Someone should explain that to Drumpf.

[GreenGoo]

Mr Fed changed the name of Popehat Twitter today to OkayMaybeItsRICOHat.

[Paingod]

Mr Fed changed the name of Popehat Twitter today to OkayMaybeItsRICOHat.

It definitely feels like they're building a case piece by piece here and Trump is such a fucking moron that you have to assume that his criminal conspiracy is amateur hour compared to tougher nuts like established organized crime syndicates.

His whole life he's been immune from prying by bullying the right people and having an army of lawyers. Getting into the presidency ripped off all his safety valves.

[Holman]

Mr Fed changed the name of Popehat Twitter today to OkayMaybeItsRICOHat.

It definitely feels like they're building a case piece by piece here and Trump is such a fucking moron that you have to assume that his criminal conspiracy is amateur hour compared to tougher nuts like established organized crime syndicates.

His whole life he's been immune from prying by bullying the right people and having an army of lawyers. Getting into the presidency ripped off all his safety valves.

And of course he thought it would work the opposite way: with a loyal DOJ to shield him, he'd be able to get away with *anything*.

[pr0ner]

Mr Fed changed the name of Popehat Twitter today to OkayMaybeItsRICOHat.

It definitely feels like they're building a case piece by piece here and Trump is such a fucking moron that you have to assume that his criminal conspiracy is amateur hour compared to tougher nuts like established organized crime syndicates.

His whole life he's been immune from prying by bullying the right people and having an army of lawyers. Getting into the presidency ripped off all his safety valves.

And of course he thought it would work the opposite way: with a loyal DOJ to shield him, he'd be able to get away with *anything*.

I'm sure this is why he thinks Rod Rosenstein should be in jail for treason for appointing Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.

[GreenGoo]

His whole life he's been immune from prying by bullying the right people and having an army of lawyers. Getting into the presidency ripped off all his safety valves.

I take my silver linings where I find them.

From the beginning my primary outrage has been that he thought he was worthy of being President. I was literally outraged that he thought he should be president. When the American people agreed with him I almost vomited. That achieving it might alter the course of his life of comfort and authority to one of derision and jail is a small comfort, but it is a comfort none the same(? Is this right? Feels weird).

[Jaymann]

Perhaps, "nonetheless," less we not forget.

[Pyperkub]

I love how a man who blatantly lies several times a day wants us to believe him when he says it's the other guy that's not telling the truth.

Holy shit, I just a teaching moment with my autistic kid about reputation, credibility and trustworthiness. He has a long history of lying about any and everything, even things that are meaningless or actually make things worse for him (like, if we believed the lie it's worse than if we thought he was lying) and recently had a he said/she said with her sister and became quite upset when we didn't immediately believe him over her.

It's actually much more complicated than that, and one of the things I've tried to do is make sure he knows I trust him and take him at his word instead of expressing skepticism and disbelief, so that when the truth comes out he can see just how badly he's betrayed my trust in him. I mean, if I lie to my wife and my wife doesn't believe me but lets it go anyway, what's to stop me from just lying all the time? The lie may not work but nothing bad happens, and it might work, so why not?

At the same time, I feel like I can't drop the hammer on him because the nature of his lying often seems counter-intuitive and perhaps not always intended to deceive, maliciously. I'm not saying it's out of his control, but sometimes it seems spontaneous and not thought through. I really don't want to bring draconian measures to bear over whether he's brushed his teeth or not. Or whether he's changed his socks to clean ones. Making matters worse, his brother and sister are treated more traditionally, so the enforcement of the rules are not completely even. We have different expectations for the kids and they are at different levels of development. You don't ground a 5 year old for lying about taking a cookie, while you might do so for a 14 year old who had been explicitly told not to take a cookie and did it anyway then lied about it. That's sort of the unevenness I'm talking about.

In any case, the point of this post is that my 12 year old autistic kid is learning about credibility and how it plays into the perception of trustworthiness. Sure, *this* time might be the truth, but you said the exact same thing last time when it wasn't, so how can I trust you? Trust is earned, dude.

Someone should explain that to Drumpf.

Your son's name isn't RICO, by any chance?

[Kraken]

And exactly why did President Carter have to sell his peanut farm?

He didn't have to. He reluctantly chose to, in order to avoid the appearance of conflicts.

I wonder if we'll see a return to that kind of scrupulous integrity as part of the backlash to Trump, or if Americans will just decide that having a criminal in the WH is normal now.

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps, "nonetheless," less we not forget.

Yeah, that's better. Thanks.

Also, I see what you did there.

[LordMortis]

Perhaps, "nonetheless," less we not forget.

I think you mean justtheless or is that allthedifferent?

I wonder if we'll see a return to that kind of scrupulous integrity as part of the backlash to Trump, or if Americans will just decide that having a criminal in the WH is normal now.

One would hope the former but I think about 35% of the US has shown that the later is a means to the America they believe in and simply don't care.

[Pyperkub]

And the thumb screws tighten (on everyone involved).

Ed Burke. Good riddance.




Not exactly related to Mueller but rumors it's for the tax "mitigation" work Burke and co did for Trump Tower.

One wonders if such tax work might also include information on how Trump weathered the real estate portion of the 2008 financial collapse. I've long suspected that it was only with Russian $$$ that he stayed afloat.

[GreenGoo]

I think you mean justtheless or is that allthedifferent?

You're not helping...

...if I start saying stuff like that I'm coming for you.

[Holman]

One wonders if such tax work might also include information on how Trump weathered the real estate portion of the 2008 financial collapse. I've long suspected that it was only with Russian $$$ that he stayed afloat.

There's also the prosecutorial tool of using immediate charges to gain cooperation with other issues.

Burke broke off his business relationship with Trump in June 2018. Apparently he still does work for Jared Kushner.

[YellowKing]

One would hope the former but I think about 35% of the US has shown that the later is a means to the America they believe in and simply don't care.

I'm fine with that, as long as they stay the minority.

The mid-terms showed that most Americans DO care, and will take steps to right the ship when it goes too far askew. And when and if the Mueller bombshells start dropping, I think you're going to see Trump's already dismal approval rating drop even lower.

The point where I would have thrown up my hands in despair would be:
- If mid-terms showed Americans support Trump's agenda (Blue Wave showed the exact opposite)
- There was no indication that Trump or his cronies would be held accountable for their crimes (again, most evidence shows this is not going to be the case)

In my mind, that's two huge tests to our democracy that we passed. It doesn't erase the damage Trump has done, and it doesn't heal the partisan divide. But it's a bit of hope to cling to. In one of the worst possible scenarios we've faced as a nation from a presidential standpoint, the gears of justice are still grinding away.

Hopefully Trump was the wake-up call, and the next tyrant will find the road to power much more difficult to traverse. That's my optimistic view. My pessimist in me says Trump created the road map for others to follow.

[Holman]

Hopefully Trump was the wake-up call, and the next tyrant will find the road to power much more difficult to traverse. That's my optimistic view. My pessimist in me says Trump created the road map for others to follow.

If Dems take the WH and Congress in 2020, there will be a huge public expectation that they codify former norms as actual laws. Norms aren't enough.

If Trump holds the WH, even laws won't be enough.

[GreenGoo]

Burke broke off his business relationship with Trump in June 2018. Apparently he still does work for Jared Kushner.

Because of the arm's length separation allowed him to do so, obviously.

Hilarious.

[Unagi]

Holy shit, I just a teaching moment with my autistic kid about reputation, credibility and trustworthiness. He has a long history of lying about any and everything, even things that are meaningless or actually make things worse for him (like, if we believed the lie it's worse than if we thought he was lying) and recently had a he said/she said with her sister and became quite upset when we didn't immediately believe him over her.

It's actually much more complicated than that, and one of the things I've tried to do is make sure he knows I trust him and take him at his word instead of expressing skepticism and disbelief, so that when the truth comes out he can see just how badly he's betrayed my trust in him. I mean, if I lie to my wife and my wife doesn't believe me but lets it go anyway, what's to stop me from just lying all the time? The lie may not work but nothing bad happens, and it might work, so why not?

At the same time, I feel like I can't drop the hammer on him because the nature of his lying often seems counter-intuitive and perhaps not always intended to deceive, maliciously. I'm not saying it's out of his control, but sometimes it seems spontaneous and not thought through. I really don't want to bring draconian measures to bear over whether he's brushed his teeth or not. Or whether he's changed his socks to clean ones. Making matters worse, his brother and sister are treated more traditionally, so the enforcement of the rules are not completely even. We have different expectations for the kids and they are at different levels of development. You don't ground a 5 year old for lying about taking a cookie, while you might do so for a 14 year old who had been explicitly told not to take a cookie and did it anyway then lied about it. That's sort of the unevenness I'm talking about.

In any case, the point of this post is that my 12 year old autistic kid is learning about credibility and how it plays into the perception of trustworthiness. Sure, *this* time might be the truth, but you said the exact same thing last time when it wasn't, so how can I trust you? Trust is earned, dude.

You just perfectly expressed exactly what I am going through with my 11 year old autistic son (and his 8 year old sister). Like -every nuance- you covered.
sigh.


So, you will get a kick out of this. Two nights ago we got Chinese order-out... his fortune cookie: "Nobody believes a liar, even when they tell the truth."

I'm sure I should have played the lottery that day instead, but it was still pretty huge.

[Pyperkub]

[GreenGoo]

So, you will get a kick out of this. Two nights ago we got Chinese order-out... his fortune cookie: "Nobody believes a liar, even when they tell the truth."

I'm sure I should have played the lottery that day instead, but it was still pretty huge.

That is awesome. If I'm making any headway it's, at best, incremental.

Everything is secondary to the thought of "You can get your kid to eat Chinese food? Amazing!" though. Getting my son to eat anything even remotely approximating balanced nutritionally is an indescribable hurdle.

As to the rest of it, good luck!

[Unagi]

just the strips of Mongolian beef and steamed white rice.

[Smoove_B]

Newsweek

Outgoing GOP Senator Jeff Flake voted against advancing a controversial Trump judicial nominee, as previously promised, after Senate Republicans again blocked a bipartisan measure to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from being fired.

Announcer: Actually, no, he didn't.

Outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) flaked again when he withdrew his “no” vote against controversial judicial nominee Jonathan Kobes.

Flake has pledged to stage an epic protest against President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who refused to allow a vote on a bill to protect Bob Mueller.

“So my commitment to not vote for judges before the committee or on the floor until we get this done stands,” Flake told reporters Wednesday.

“That’s not an idle threat,” CNN host Jake Tapper said when Flake announced his protest. He noted “if he votes against any of the 32 judges that come before the Senate floor, that makes it 50-50 and [Vice President] Mike Pence gets to be a tiebreaker.

That’s exactly what happened Thursday, when Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) was unable to vote, though he would have been a “yes” vote. Flake’s “no” vote would have prevented Kobes from being confirmed. Instead, Flake withdrew his “no” vote so that the vote would be 49 to 49 and Pence would have to cast the tie-breaking vote.

Amazing.

[malchior]

What does anyone expect from a messy drama queen. He didn't actually change his position - he still forced Pence to break the tie. Oooh what an inconvenience!

[LordMortis]

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 3185475967

Corsi seems honest and sympathetic with a political axe to wield as a Trump supporter, making Fox news seems all that much worse. His sympathy in trying to protect Roger Stone while staying honest makes Stone in to the vile political operative he is.

Corsi may be Trump's G Gordon Liddy.

Edit:

OK he seemed honest and sympathetic until we got to Obama....

[GreenGoo]

He didn't actually change his position - he still forced Pence to break the tie.

To the best of my knowledge his position isn't to force a tie breaker vote. His position is to vote no until the drumpf thing. Did he get the drumpf thing? No? Did he vote no? No? Is he doing what he said he was going to do, or did he Flake the moment his position would actually matter?

He's a total scumbag. Not solely because he's a GOP rank and file, but especially because he's trying to fool the pubic that he isn't. Even more so, he's claimed to hold a principled stance (one that I happen to agree with, but if it were principled and I didn't agree with it I could at least respect it) while demonstrating that he doesn't understand what the word principle means.

That's...scumbaggy.

[Zaxxon]

I fully concur with Goo. Felt the need to point that out after this am's discussion in another thread.

[TheMix]

Actually, based on the quoted text, he did exactly what he said he would.

“So my commitment to not vote for judges before the committee or on the floor until we get this done stands,” Flake told reporters Wednesday.

He didn't vote. But that is definitely holding to the definition of what he said, and not the spirit. Because the implied intent was to vote "no". At least that is how it comes across to me.

Does that make him slimier? Maybe so, maybe so...

[Zaxxon]

Certainly. It means he anticipated this outcome and made his pledge in such a way as to not be a true hindrance.

[TheMix]

To be clear, I'm firmly in that camp. I just phrased it in case someone else wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But based on that, I'd say that his name is no longer a good indicator. Since he's clearly far more in the "scumbag" category than the "flake" category.

Whenever I hear/see people pull the "techically.... so, I'm right" move, it always makes my skin crawl. Since it means that whatever they posited initially was always essentially a lie. They knew how it would be taken, and they'd already planned their 'out'. The welcher's move.

[GreenGoo]

I fully concur with Goo. Felt the need to point that out after this am's discussion in another thread.

Hugz.

Actually, based on the quoted text, he did exactly what he said he would.

Ok, sure, I would have sworn "vote no" was in that text, but it isn't, so I'd need to see his original "pledge" which appears less a pledge and more "I refuse to participate". In any case, using weasel words and slimey contract-like wording that drumpf himself would be proud to have thought of (but probably wouldn't) thinking it makes you look principled is laughable.

Who is he fooling? This is not a court of law. The voter doesn't shout "Not Guilty" and vote for you because you weaseled your way around a principle. Or do they? Pointing out that he's technically not violating his pledge while making sure he doesn't hinder anything is winning which voters exactly?

I guess there is some small percentage of voters that give a crap about the principle he's skirting, and are somehow fooled into believing he's being principled. That has to be a tiny demographic though, right? I mean, what a weird group of people that must be.

In any case I absolutely was refuting your statements TheMix, based on my own misunderstanding/misreading, so I withdraw my initial comments and replace them with the ones in this post. Unless it comes to light that his "pledge" did involve voting against the judges his party put forth, in which case we're back where we started.

I'm too tired to track down Flake's original, or even morphing "pledge". It's hard to imagine any wording of the pledge that would erase my contempt for him.

[TheMix]

Huh? You were refuting me? I thought you were just expounding. And I was totally agreeing with you. I even used your "scumbaggy" as a jumping off point!

I only pointed out his actual words because I'm fairly certain that he and any of his "supporters" would use it to weasel. I shudder now as I mentally hear the response start with "Technically...". grrrrrr....

[GreenGoo]

Huh? You were refuting me?

I was refuting Malchior's initial comment. My bad.

Which as it turns out was also wrong due to me misreading the quoted text that started this.

So...

The rest of my analysis still stands though, until someone points out yet another thing I'm overlooking and I have to mea culpa yet again.

P.S. I don't speak Latin and have never taken a course in it. I'm just using buzz words I heard on the internetz.(this is an inside joke to myself. A former boss actually spoke these words out loud in a meeting that included his boss, his boss's boss, and top tier management. The gossip was rampant that day, I can tell you).

[Carpet_pissr]

Holeee shit. I would never have expected it from this guy (to whom I have sent a number of nasty emails in the past year):

Tim Scott Sinks Trump Judicial Nominee
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/ ... ee-1027236

"nasty" is too strong. More like "I'm disappointed in your support of horrible people like (insert litany of horrible Trump appointees here)" WTF are you thinking?

Edit: oops, different judge nomination. I thought it was the same one referenced above.

[Pyperkub]

Comey comes out firing against Devin Nunes' sham investigation in his motion to quash the thanksgiving subpeona:

In Thursday's filing, his lawyers argue that the House Judiciary and Oversight committees "have conducted an investigation in a manner that exceeds a proper legislative purpose insofar as members of the committees have established a practice of selectively leaking witnesses' testimony in order to support a false political narrative, while subjecting witnesses to a variety of abuse."

"Mr. Comey asks this Court's intervention not to avoid giving testimony but to prevent the Joint Committee from using the pretext of a closed interview to peddle a distorted, partisan political narrative about the Clinton and Russian investigations through selective leaks," his lawyers added in court papers.

[LordMortis]

Comey comes out firing against Devin Nunes' sham investigation in his motion to quash the thanksgiving subpeona:

In Thursday's filing, his lawyers argue that the House Judiciary and Oversight committees "have conducted an investigation in a manner that exceeds a proper legislative purpose insofar as members of the committees have established a practice of selectively leaking witnesses' testimony in order to support a false political narrative, while subjecting witnesses to a variety of abuse."

"Mr. Comey asks this Court's intervention not to avoid giving testimony but to prevent the Joint Committee from using the pretext of a closed interview to peddle a distorted, partisan political narrative about the Clinton and Russian investigations through selective leaks," his lawyers added in court papers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 135863002/

"This is our Joseph McCarthy Era!" he claimed.

Queue theme from Shaft

Who is the man who made Galslighting a household word, man? (Trump)