Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:53 pm
That's lying under oath for Jeff Sessions then.

Holman wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:42 amHow easy would it be for Trump to take the opportunity to fire Sessions and appoint an acting AG who will fire Mueller?

Holman wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:42 am How easy would it be for Trump to take the opportunity to fire Sessions and appoint an acting AG who will fire Mueller?

According to this article from the last time Trump turned on Sessions, it might not be that simple, but I don't know.

Holman wrote:

link

Carter Page reportedly testified today that he told Jeff Sessions he was traveling to Russia during the election.

That's lying under oath for Jeff Sessions then.

Pyperkub wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:54 am Remember, Page was stupid enough not to bring a lawyer to his session.

Republican Rep. Gaetz has intro’d a non-binding resolution that Mueller should resign from his position as special counsel

Matthew Gaetz is an American attorney and politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Florida's 1st congressional district since 2017. A Republican, he was a member of the Florida House of Representatives, representing the 4th District, which includes most of Okaloosa County, from 2010 to 2016.

Sepiche wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:30 am
I guess what I'm saying is I'm looking forward to the Carter Page biopic starring Jack McBreyer.

Defiant wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:10 pm In terms of Trump firing Mueller - or indirectly by replacing Sessions - the question is whether the Republicans in congress would stop him. So far, until the above, to the extent they've had any reaction, they've been mildly supportive of Mueller - they're saying he's doing his job and not feeding in to some in the RW media saying that Mueller is a hack, needs to be fired, etc. On the other hand, they haven't been actively doing anything to prevent Mueller from being fired (or going on the record to say that they would oppose such a firing). They're probably playing it safe in the middle, which allows them to turn on Trump if his approval rating goes south (among Republicans).

El Guapo wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:15 pm

Defiant wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:10 pm In terms of Trump firing Mueller - or indirectly by replacing Sessions - the question is whether the Republicans in congress would stop him. So far, until the above, to the extent they've had any reaction, they've been mildly supportive of Mueller - they're saying he's doing his job and not feeding in to some in the RW media saying that Mueller is a hack, needs to be fired, etc. On the other hand, they haven't been actively doing anything to prevent Mueller from being fired (or going on the record to say that they would oppose such a firing). They're probably playing it safe in the middle, which allows them to turn on Trump if his approval rating goes south (among Republicans).

That's not really true. Graham has said that there "would be holy hell to pay" if Trump fired Mueller. Several other GOP senators (and some representatives) have said things along the lines of Mueller’s investigation should be funded “until the job is done.”

It's true that no one's really gone much beyond vague threats and intimations on what to do if Trump tries to fire Mueller, but plenty of them (mainly senators) have said that they oppose defunding / firing Mueller.

Defiant wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:24 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:15 pm

Defiant wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:10 pm In terms of Trump firing Mueller - or indirectly by replacing Sessions - the question is whether the Republicans in congress would stop him. So far, until the above, to the extent they've had any reaction, they've been mildly supportive of Mueller - they're saying he's doing his job and not feeding in to some in the RW media saying that Mueller is a hack, needs to be fired, etc. On the other hand, they haven't been actively doing anything to prevent Mueller from being fired (or going on the record to say that they would oppose such a firing). They're probably playing it safe in the middle, which allows them to turn on Trump if his approval rating goes south (among Republicans).

That's not really true. Graham has said that there "would be holy hell to pay" if Trump fired Mueller. Several other GOP senators (and some representatives) have said things along the lines of Mueller’s investigation should be funded “until the job is done.”

It's true that no one's really gone much beyond vague threats and intimations on what to do if Trump tries to fire Mueller, but plenty of them (mainly senators) have said that they oppose defunding / firing Mueller.

Good to hear.

Kraken wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:20 pm Apropos of nothing really, I just want to say that the Mueller investigation looks thorough, professional, and biased only to where the facts lead it. I expect that he will ultimately prove Trump guilty of collusion...but if he exonerates Trump, I will accept that the outcome was fair.

Mueller wisely brought one set of charges (mostly financial crimes that preceded the campaign), and he is saving other charges that New York could also bring (tax fraud, soliciting stolen goods, soliciting/conspiring to hack computers). Mueller also knew that his indictment document on Monday would include a devastating amount of detail on paper without relying on any witnesses to testify, showing Mueller had the goods on a slam-dunk federal money laundering case. Then he dropped the hammer with the Papadopoulos plea agreement, showing Manafort and Gates that he has the goods on far more charges, both in federal and state court.

Citing people familiar with Mueller’s investigation, Bloomberg reports that Cyprus gave Mueller's team documents relating to Manafort and his associate Richard Gates just dates before they were indicted Monday.

...

The indictment against Manafort and Gates alleges that they funneled more than $75 million through foreign bank accounts in Cyprus and other countries. According to a Bloomberg source, the duo had at least 15 accounts with Cypriot banks.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has collected sufficient evidence to charge Michael Flynn, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, and his son, NBC News reported on Sunday, citing multiple sources familiar with the investigation.

NBC News said Mueller’s team is looking at possible money laundering charges, lying to federal agents, and Flynn’s role in a possible plan to remove an opponent of the Turkish president from the United States in exchange for millions of dollars.

Mueller is increasing pressure on Flynn following his indictment of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, NBC News said.

Flynn served 24 days as Trump’s national security adviser but was fired after it was discovered he had misrepresented his contacts with a Russian diplomat to Vice President Michael Pence.

Barry Coburn, a lawyer for the younger Flynn, declined to comment. Robert Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

NBC said that Mueller’s office also declined comment.

Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the report.

Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:10 pm If the NBC reporting is accurate, then it seems like money laundering is going to be a recurring theme. Fortunately, Trump and family are known for their immaculately scrupulous business dealings, so none of this will splash onto them.

Zaxxon wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:12 pm Ha, I had just come in here to mention that.

Blackhawk wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:12 pm Ha, I had just come in here to mention that.

The four that turns into a three. I can't stop watching the four that turns into a three.

Glitch in the matrix.

@KenDilanianNBC wrote:Wow: JD Gordon tells NBC's @vmsalama he tried to stop Page from going to Moscow, but Page went around him "directly to campaign leadership."

Scoop20906 wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:41 pm So I am wondering if this is a crime. He is approached about releasing stolen emails in an attempt to influence the election. Is that illegal? I mean, leave Russia out of it for a moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:05 am

Scoop20906 wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:41 pm So I am wondering if this is a crime. He is approached about releasing stolen emails in an attempt to influence the election. Is that illegal? I mean, leave Russia out of it for a moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it's not American, it almost certainly is against the laws covering elections, and that's not even considering the word "stolen" beside the word "emails". Is Don Jr. guilty of anything? depends on how he was involved.

Up here we had a a campaign hire an American firm to make cold calls. If it had been an Canadian company, no problem. Since it wasn't, major drama and investigation.

Max probably remembers better than I do. Hopefully he can clarify any details I've gotten wrong.

CBC News has learned that more than a dozen Conservative MPs employed U.S.-based political telemarketing firms during the last federal election campaign, contrary to Stephen Harper’s statement in Parliament this week.

The prime minister and his parliamentary secretary, Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro, claimed in the Commons that the Liberals were the only party that used American calling firms.

"We’ve done some checking," the PM said, and "we’ve only found that it was the Liberal Party that did source its phone calls from the United States."

But documents show 14 Conservative campaigns enlisted the telephone services of an Ohio company called Front Porch Strategies.

During the election, the company made thousands of calls into each of those Canadian ridings from its headquarters in Columbus.

In fact, Del Mastro’s own campaign used the American firm twice during his successful bid for re-election last year.

Del Mastro was already left red-faced earlier this week after he accused the Liberals of using an American telemarketing firm which, in fact, is a Canadian company.

A source connected to Front Porch tells CBC News that all the calls from Ohio to Del Mastro’s riding during the election were programmed to show the telephone number of his local campaign headquarters, masking the fact the phoning was being done from Ohio.

Front Porch’s calls to 13 other ridings on behalf of Conservative candidates operated in the same way, the source said.

There is nothing illegal about Canadian political campaigns using the services of American telemarketing firms, and it is unclear why the Conservatives tried to tarnish the Liberals with the issue.

stessier wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:50 pm I've missed some posts, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

Did you guys read the Carter Page transcript? I'm only a third of the way through but holy cow - this is why you bring a lawyer with you when you're under oath! The guy is either clueless or a moron. He also really doesn't know how to answer a question. And if that was the level of contact the Russians were forced to work with, I actually feel a bit sorry for them. I imagine a scene from Archer where the Russian handler is smiling to his face but banging his head against a wall as soon as Page leave.

stessier wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:50 pm I've missed some posts, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

Did you guys read the Carter Page transcript? I'm only a third of the way through but holy cow - this is why you bring a lawyer with you when you're under oath! The guy is either clueless or a moron. He also really doesn't know how to answer a question. And if that was the level of contact the Russians were forced to work with, I actually feel a bit sorry for them. I imagine a scene from Archer where the Russian handler is smiling to his face but banging his head against a wall as soon as Page leave.