That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
The Orange Moron wrote:James Comey illegally leaked classified documents to the press in order to generate a Special Council? Therefore, the Special Council was established based on an illegal act? Really, does everybody know what that means?
Once again, he's *sort of* right. The Special Council certainly was established based on an illegal act.
Jack Johnson died in 1946.Trump wrote:Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations were great, his life complex and controversial. Others have looked at this over the years, most thought it would be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!
A series of auto-corrects presumably. I don’t always proofread on my phone.Grifman wrote:Not to be pedantic, but it’s “counsel” but then again, you all may be riffing Trump
Johnson himself is fine, but this is the second time Trump has prominently mentioned pardons in the past few days.
Coded message to Cohen and others that Trump will pardon them?Holman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:11 pm
Jack Johnson died in 1946.Trump wrote:Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations were great, his life complex and controversial. Others have looked at this over the years, most thought it would be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!
Guys, I think Trump might be trying to send a super-subtle super-secret message!
I’m pretty sure Trump thinks Stallone is actually Rocky.Holman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:11 pm
Jack Johnson died in 1946.Trump wrote:Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations were great, his life complex and controversial. Others have looked at this over the years, most thought it would be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!
Guys, I think Trump might be trying to send a super-subtle super-secret message!
Ah, OK, thanks. It's my understanding that a presidential pardon doesn't shield one from state charges, but I might be wrong, and Trump wouldn't know that anyway.Holman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:58 pmJohnson himself is fine, but this is the second time Trump has prominently mentioned pardons in the past few days.
He's desperate to keep Cohen from flipping.
Desperate is as desperate does.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:53 pmAh, OK, thanks. It's my understanding that a presidential pardon doesn't shield one from state charges, but I might be wrong, and Trump wouldn't know that anyway.Holman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:58 pmJohnson himself is fine, but this is the second time Trump has prominently mentioned pardons in the past few days.
He's desperate to keep Cohen from flipping.
The transparency here is the DNC approaching a nervous breakdown. They're seeing things and are in panic mode. What could be more transparent than that?
And they should be. Their Russia collusion delusion is coming down all around them—it's amazing it lasted so long—with many of their stalwarts, from Andrew McCabe to a slew of high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials, and even, though less likely, some Obama insiders, fighting to stay of out the slammer.
And the inspector general's report isn't even out yet. We have only seen what Roger Kimball calls the appetizer, there being only one criminal referral (McCabe) so far. Wait until the IG starts to unwrap the FISA court scandal and the attendant illegal spying cum "unmaskings" of who-knows-how-many American citizens, the Hillary email investigation's absurd miscarriage of justice, and the whole Clinton Foundation ball of wax. It isn't going to be pretty.
At this point, pace the Comey memos, it is beginning to look as if the entire Russia investigation was itself illegal. The IG is apparently looking into that too.
You would think the DNC would have the brains to lay low or at least make some minor disavowals and hope things blow over. (Even CNN's Jake Tapper—sensing the wind shifting—was a bit tough with Comey in a recent interview.) But no, they have, as the saying goes, doubled-down on stupid.
Much of this may have been done to gin up their base, or for fundraising purposes, but they will regret it. Impeachment doesn't play well with the public and neither will sorehead lawsuits, especially when juxtaposed with the IG's facts.
Democratic strategist (apologize for that rancid term) Julius Epstein, looking justifiably anxious on Shannon Bream's show Friday night, tried to argue this was a great opportunity for the Democrats to expose folks like Manafort and Kushner through discovery.
Good luck with that. Discovery in this matter would be disastrous for the Democratic Party. Wait until their leaders have to go on the stand to explain why the FBI wasn't allowed to scrutinize the DNC servers that were supposedly invaded by the Russians. A raft of Democrat political factotums (Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, etc.) who made sweetheart deals and escaped true investigation by the FBI, perhaps even Hillary herself, will find themselves facing serious cross-examination for the first time. This civil trial would be curiously reminiscent of the OJ civil trial when the real truth came out. Wouldn't you love to hear Strzok and Page deposed? How about Susan Rice?
The fantasies of a feverish mind.Rip wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:30 am https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/dnc-ver ... a-lawsuit/
The transparency here is the DNC approaching a nervous breakdown. They're seeing things and are in panic mode. What could be more transparent than that?
And they should be. Their Russia collusion delusion is coming down all around them—it's amazing it lasted so long—with many of their stalwarts, from Andrew McCabe to a slew of high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials, and even, though less likely, some Obama insiders, fighting to stay of out the slammer.
How long should we give you until you realize this will never happen and you have to say “I’m sorry, I was wrong”? I mean, presumably this supposed timeline has an expiration date?Rip wrote:https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/dnc-ver ... a-lawsuit/
The transparency here is the DNC approaching a nervous breakdown. They're seeing things and are in panic mode. What could be more transparent than that?
And they should be. Their Russia collusion delusion is coming down all around them—it's amazing it lasted so long—with many of their stalwarts, from Andrew McCabe to a slew of high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials, and even, though less likely, some Obama insiders, fighting to stay of out the slammer.
And the inspector general's report isn't even out yet. We have only seen what Roger Kimball calls the appetizer, there being only one criminal referral (McCabe) so far. Wait until the IG starts to unwrap the FISA court scandal and the attendant illegal spying cum "unmaskings" of who-knows-how-many American citizens, the Hillary email investigation's absurd miscarriage of justice, and the whole Clinton Foundation ball of wax. It isn't going to be pretty.
At this point, pace the Comey memos, it is beginning to look as if the entire Russia investigation was itself illegal. The IG is apparently looking into that too.
You would think the DNC would have the brains to lay low or at least make some minor disavowals and hope things blow over. (Even CNN's Jake Tapper—sensing the wind shifting—was a bit tough with Comey in a recent interview.) But no, they have, as the saying goes, doubled-down on stupid.
Much of this may have been done to gin up their base, or for fundraising purposes, but they will regret it. Impeachment doesn't play well with the public and neither will sorehead lawsuits, especially when juxtaposed with the IG's facts.
Democratic strategist (apologize for that rancid term) Julius Epstein, looking justifiably anxious on Shannon Bream's show Friday night, tried to argue this was a great opportunity for the Democrats to expose folks like Manafort and Kushner through discovery.
Good luck with that. Discovery in this matter would be disastrous for the Democratic Party. Wait until their leaders have to go on the stand to explain why the FBI wasn't allowed to scrutinize the DNC servers that were supposedly invaded by the Russians. A raft of Democrat political factotums (Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, etc.) who made sweetheart deals and escaped true investigation by the FBI, perhaps even Hillary herself, will find themselves facing serious cross-examination for the first time. This civil trial would be curiously reminiscent of the OJ civil trial when the real truth came out. Wouldn't you love to hear Strzok and Page deposed? How about Susan Rice?
It's interesting anthropologically, at least.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:15 amThe fantasies of a feverish mind.Rip wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:30 am https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/dnc-ver ... a-lawsuit/
The transparency here is the DNC approaching a nervous breakdown. They're seeing things and are in panic mode. What could be more transparent than that?
And they should be. Their Russia collusion delusion is coming down all around them—it's amazing it lasted so long—with many of their stalwarts, from Andrew McCabe to a slew of high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials, and even, though less likely, some Obama insiders, fighting to stay of out the slammer.
Can we keep the opinion pieces to a minimum? I really don't give a shit what some random blogger/news caster/political pundit/wanker on a forum thinks about any of this.
When President Richard Nixon got into legal trouble, a team of top lawyers signed up to represent him. And as Bill Clinton found himself staring down a grand jury, another group of elite attorneys stood at his side.
But the lure of representing the most powerful man in the world isn’t appealing to this generation’s cadre of top white-collar criminal defense attorneys: Twelve partners from a total of seven firms have said no to President Trump’s entreaties to help him navigate the special counsel’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
...
Struggling to find excellent legal counsel is a problem no other president in modern times has faced, according to historians. Trump supporters say it’s a consequence of the president’s battle with the country’s legal and business establishments, which are intertwined with the most powerful law firms. It also shows the downside of the go-it-alone personality that aided Trump during the campaign, but is leaving him isolated as a leader. He sometimes tweets or talks when his lawyers want him to hold his fire; his pugnacious broadsides sometimes exacerbate his own already considerable legal troubles. Repeatedly calling the probe of possible Russian collusion a “witch hunt’’ on Twitter and calling out Special Counsel Robert Mueller by name may fire up his political base, but it is perceived as distinctly unhelpful in the wood-paneled hush of Washington law offices.
“There is a tradition in this country that when the president calls asking for assistance, one generally provides it. This president provokes a different reaction,” said Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard Law professor who recently dined with Trump and is at times supportive of him on TV. “Many people think that helping this president is akin to treason.”
...
Lawyers who’ve watched firms turn him down say it’s a combination of factors. There’s Trump’s reputation as a very difficult client who will undercut, change his mind, and publicly humiliate. Managing partners at top firms also fear Trump is so polarizing that their practice would lose clients and talent if they’re associated with him.
“Everyone who becomes associated with Trump becomes diminished,” explained one leading white-collar crime expert, who didn’t want to be named for fear of offending the president. “You come out with less of a reputation.”
Let's set aside for the moment the obvious lie that he doesn't know Haberman, a reporter who has interviewed him multiple times. Who is the "drunk/drugged up loser"? Comey? Haberman? The weird dude who was on MSNBC a couple weeks ago?The New York Times and a third rate reporter named Maggie Haberman, known as a Crooked H flunkie who I don’t speak to and have nothing to do with, are going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will “flip.” They use....
....non-existent “sources” and a drunk/drugged up loser who hates Michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. Michael is a businessman for his own account/lawyer who I have always liked & respected. Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if....
....it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media!
Kellyanne Conway dodged the question when asked, but Maggie Haberman tweeted that it was probably Sam Nunberg (who famously refused and then caved on a subpoena more or less in real-time between interviews a few weeks back).Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:44 pm Let's set aside for the moment the obvious lie that he doesn't know Haberman, a reporter who has interviewed him multiple times. Who is the "drunk/drugged up loser"? Comey? Haberman? The weird dude who was on MSNBC a couple weeks ago?
I can't keep track of all the crazy flying off this administration any more.
Thanks, Nunberg is the name I was looking for but couldn’t remember.Holman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:55 pm
Kellyanne Conway dodged the question when asked, but Maggie Haberman tweeted that it was probably Sam Nunberg (who famously refused and then caved on a subpoena more or less in real-time between interviews a few weeks back).
Nunberg has turned on Trump and seems to be trying to save his own skin. He's also in the weird situation of declaring his absolute loyalty to his mentor Roger Stone while Stone shits all over him. He is suspected of flipping or almost flipping on both Stone and Trump.
In short, he's the beta version of Michael Cohen.
Relevant and interesting technical note - the pardon would effectively negate NY state charges because they would fall into NY's definition of double jeopardy. The NY AG is asking the legislator to close that loophole as quickly as possible.
Small world, I spent quite a few weekends bussing at the El Caribe in the late 70's early 80's. It was definitely a place for "known associates" to gather back in the day. I would guess there was some sort of gradual transition to the Russians in the later years.tgb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:10 pm I just heard a talking head on CNN make a passing comment that Michael Cohen has been close to the Russian mob going back to childhood because his father was part owner of EL Caribe country club in Brooklyn, a known hangout for those guys.
Fun fact: One of my first jobs at age 15 or 16 was as a bus boy at El Caribe. I knew at the time the ownership was mobbed up, but always thought it was the Italians.
Icing on the cake: My sister remembers that we held my Bar Mitzvah reception there. Where in Brooklyn did you live?Tao wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:00 pmSmall world, I spent quite a few weekends bussing at the El Caribe in the late 70's early 80's. It was definitely a place for "known associates" to gather back in the day. I would guess there was some sort of gradual transition to the Russians in the later years.tgb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:10 pm I just heard a talking head on CNN make a passing comment that Michael Cohen has been close to the Russian mob going back to childhood because his father was part owner of EL Caribe country club in Brooklyn, a known hangout for those guys.
Fun fact: One of my first jobs at age 15 or 16 was as a bus boy at El Caribe. I knew at the time the ownership was mobbed up, but always thought it was the Italians.
What are we to make of arch-conservative Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) taking a stand against President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)?
Tillis is among a surprising group of Senate Republicans backing a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller in case Trump fires him.
Here is Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time, sending the message to his fellow Trump backers:
“The same people who would criticize me for filing this bill would be absolutely angry if I wasn’t pounding the table for this bill if we were dealing with Hillary Clinton,” he said last week. “So, spare me your righteous indignation.”
My understanding is that it's not that the pardon would create double-jeopardy issue, it's that New York apparently has a statute that says that jeopardy attached for state double-jeopardy purposes when (IIRC) a jury is convened. So for Manafort, Cohen, etc., Trump could just wait until a jury is convened and then pardon them, and then New York would be pretty much SOL. Which is a significant problem.malchior wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:23 pmRelevant and interesting technical note - the pardon would effectively negate NY state charges because they would fall into NY's definition of double jeopardy. The NY AG is asking the legislator to close that loophole as quickly as possible.
