Octopus Overlords

Which is weird, because she also said this:

"The evidence was overwhelming," Duncan said. "I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty, but he was, and no one is above the law. So it was our obligation to look through all of the evidence."

The old "and he would have gotten away with it too, if not for you meddling kids" excuse.

Trump supports explaining their's and his excuses give me a headache and a sick stomach.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:51 pm Which is weird, because she also said this:

"The evidence was overwhelming," Duncan said. "I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty, but he was, and no one is above the law. So it was our obligation to look through all of the evidence."

Well thank God that she was at least somewhat open to evidence. Though apparently her cognitive dissonance is still sufficient for her not to question how a witch hunt found a Trump associate to be clearly guilty of crimes.

I wonder how the prosecution didn't weed her off the jury.

I'm not necessarily seeing any cognitive dissonance. She said that a) the documentary evidence clearly showed that Manafort was guilty on all charges (in the opinion of her and all but one other member of the jury) and b) that he would have got away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids. It's not illogical to posit that Manafort's crimes might never have been brought to light if Mueller's investigation hadn't gone digging into his affairs in the course of of the investigation. And she is far from the only person who doesn't understand that Mueller's purview explicitly extends to any criminal activity uncovered by the investigation, and isn't restricted solely to the issue of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:40 am Trump voter on Manafort jury says one holdout prevented complete conviction on all counts in high-stakes fraud trial

Duncan claimed that the holdout juror is the one who prompted them to send a note to Judge T.S. Ellis asking for an explanation of the term, "reasonable doubt."

If only I had said 'she".... almost nailed it.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:05 am I'm guessing there is a Trump fan on the jury - and he is holding out on 'reasonable doubt' , wherein the rest of the jury finds his 'reasonable' to be a joke.

It's not a good sign when the jury asks the judge for more clarity around the idea of 'reasonable doubt'.

The only people who willingly associate with Trump are fellow ne'er-do-wells who sense a chance to make a few million quick bucks. They're mostly two-bit con men like their boss, not criminal masterminds. Mueller could nail as many of them as he has time and resources to pursue, but he's after bigger fish. The juror can find solace in knowing that a whole lot of low-profile grifters will get off scot-free.

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:31 am I....I.....I have no words. Its like we elected a severely brain damaged Tony Soprano.

John Harwood wrote:Trump to Fox: "flipping almost ought to be illegal. 30-40 years I've been watching flippers"

32 years ago, crime boss Tony Salerno, who supplied Trump Plaza concrete, was convicted of racketeering. His top deputy flipped to help FBI

lawyer for both Salerno and Trump: Roy Cohn

Maddow. It's a day old, but fun to listen to. Covers: Cohen, Tax Fraud, Campaign Fraud, Trump Charity illegal activities, Trump Org illegal activities - and one lawsuit binding all these things together for inspection. Tags all Trumps except Barron, Melania, and the lost daughter.

A couple thoughts:

(1) In reading the NYT reporting of the Cohen plea deal, why is it so difficult to find out what crimes Cohen actually pled guilty to? I see all kinds of references to “illegal payments” and “hush money scheme,” but that doesn’t really provide the important details about the crimes he’s actually pled to. Seems like really, really crappy reporting to me. A reader shouldn’t have to click through the NYT article linked above to read the actual pdf of the plea agreement letter to find that important information. This Vox article does a much better job.

(2) I’m more or less clear on the criminality of Cohen’s tax evasion charges, but I don’t understand the campaign finance violation. Cohen pled guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment. Ok, but that seems to require a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a contribution to a political campaign. On NPR the other day, I heard some talking head (an FEC commisioner appointed by Bush, for what it’s worth), opining that it’s a stretch to call the payoff to Daniels a campaign contribution. To put it another way, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, wouldn’t he run into a charge of improperly using campaign funds for personal purposes?

(3) I love seeing Trump supporters squirm while trying to explain how Trump wasn’t clearly and unequivocally lying to the American people when he said on Air Force One that he didn’t know anything about the payments to Daniels. Hah!

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:47 am (2) I’m more or less clear on the criminality of Cohen’s tax evasion charges, but I don’t understand the campaign finance violation. Cohen pled guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment. Ok, but that seems to require a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a contribution to a political campaign. On NPR the other day, I heard some talking head (an FEC commisioner appointed by Bush, for what it’s worth), opining that it’s a stretch to call the payoff to Daniels a campaign contribution. To put it another way, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, wouldn’t he run into a charge of improperly using campaign funds for personal purposes?

My limited understanding on this is that it is a question of intent. If the intent is to benefit the campaign, then it's a campaign contribution. In your "put it another way" scenario, I suppose Trump could argue that this was a campaign expense, and he wouldn't have made the payment if he weren't running, so it's not really a personal expense. In reality, it's probably damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's enough wiggle room to get someone nailed in either scenario when paying off his former mistress.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:57 amMy limited understanding on this is that it is a question of intent. If the intent is to benefit the campaign, then it's a campaign contribution.

Exactly. My understanding--did this payment get made in order to increase Trump's chances of winning? The answer is 'of course it did.' So it's a campaign contribution.

In reality, it's probably damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's enough wiggle room to get someone nailed in either scenario when paying off his former mistress.

Yup. Generally you should just avoid having nailed your former mistress and then there's less damning going on.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:47 am (3) I love seeing Trump supporters squirm while trying to explain how Trump wasn’t clearly and unequivocally lying to the American people when he said on Air Force One that he didn’t know anything about the payments to Daniels. Hah!

I wonder if it's even possible to find an example of Trump telling the truth--on any subject whatsoever--when the truth makes him look bad.

I believe that it wouldn’t be a violation if Trump had paid the money himself (which he now claims he did) and also declared the money as a campaign contribution or if the campaign itself paid the money and declared it. As always, the act of trying to hide the payment makes it a bigger crime or, in this case, possibly a crime in the first place.

Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organization CFO, Is Granted Immunity in Cohen Probe

WSJ: Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organ ... ohen Probe

Another rat!



The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:32 am I believe that it wouldn’t be a violation if Trump had paid the money himself (which he now claims he did) and also declared the money as a campaign contribution or if the campaign itself paid the money and declared it. As always, the act of trying to hide the payment makes it a bigger crime or, in this case, possibly a crime in the first place.

And of course declaring the payment would defeat the purpose of keeping the story under wraps to prevent it from sinking his election chances. They knowingly committed a felony and it may have made a difference in his becoming president. The fucked up part is now that he's president, it gives him so much protection that he otherwise wouldn't have. If he had gone on to lose the elections and Cohen was pleading guilty, it's highly likely Trump would have been indicted for his role as well. He committed a criminal act. I suspect he's committed many, many more.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:47 am (2) I’m more or less clear on the criminality of Cohen’s tax evasion charges, but I don’t understand the campaign finance violation. Cohen pled guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment. Ok, but that seems to require a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a contribution to a political campaign. On NPR the other day, I heard some talking head (an FEC commisioner appointed by Bush, for what it’s worth), opining that it’s a stretch to call the payoff to Daniels a campaign contribution. To put it another way, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, wouldn’t he run into a charge of improperly using campaign funds for personal purposes?

So, this is the main thing... Trump could use his own money and pay off Daniels. Trump didn't want to do that.

If he wants to first put it into the campaign (from himself, to the campaign) he is allowed to do that (but report it) to any amount. If someone else makes that payment (Key being: evidence that it was discussed this was to help the campaign), they are limited to a much smaller amount and it too must be reported. Add to it that Trump directed it, and helped scheme about layering the payment through a company Cohen owns and Cohen would then be re-paid via fake invoices to Trump's Campaign Company....

If Trump took campaign funds and used it directly to pay off Daniels, he was free to do that, but that would have been too public - and to avoid the 'for personal use', he would have needed to be clear it was to keep his campaign free of the story of his affair... Trump didn't want to do that.
Also, one person couldn't donate the funds (limits). The money needs to be reported.

The crime that Cohen committed is that he donated this with the intent to not 'help his buddy keep his marriage' -- but to help his campaign. And they hid it.
I beleive the problem for Trump is that he was also totally wrapped up in it and there is likely evidence of all the fake invoices paying Cohen back.

Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:28 am Maddow. It's a day old, but fun to listen to. Covers: Cohen, Tax Fraud, Campaign Fraud, Trump Charity illegal activities, Trump Org illegal activities - and one lawsuit binding all these things together for inspection. Tags all Trumps except Barron, Melania, and the lost daughter.

And one from Fox(!). Not as brutal as a John Oliver rant (and poorly delivered in comparison), but let's just say I bet more than 95% of Fox watchers hated hearing that.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/582609675000 ... show-clips

When other stations are covering the collapse of the president on the runway as they drag him, kicking and screaming away from Air Force One, Fox can't be playing reruns of a Trump campaign rally.

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:59 am

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:47 am (2) I’m more or less clear on the criminality of Cohen’s tax evasion charges, but I don’t understand the campaign finance violation. Cohen pled guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment. Ok, but that seems to require a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a contribution to a political campaign. On NPR the other day, I heard some talking head (an FEC commisioner appointed by Bush, for what it’s worth), opining that it’s a stretch to call the payoff to Daniels a campaign contribution. To put it another way, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, wouldn’t he run into a charge of improperly using campaign funds for personal purposes?

So, this is the main thing... Trump could use his own money and pay off Daniels. Trump didn't want to do that.

If he wants to first put it into the campaign (from himself, to the campaign) he is allowed to do that (but report it) to any amount. If someone else makes that payment (Key being: evidence that it was discussed this was to help the campaign), they are limited to a much smaller amount and it too must be reported. Add to it that Trump directed it, and helped scheme about layering the payment through a company Cohen owns and Cohen would then be re-paid via fake invoices to Trump's Campaign Company....

If Trump took campaign funds and used it directly to pay off Daniels, he was free to do that, but that would have been too public - and to avoid the 'for personal use', he would have needed to be clear it was to keep his campaign free of the story of his affair... Trump didn't want to do that.
Also, one person couldn't donate the funds (limits). The money needs to be reported.

The crime that Cohen committed is that he donated this with the intent to not 'help his buddy keep his marriage' -- but to help his campaign. And they hid it.
I beleive the problem for Trump is that he was also totally wrapped up in it and there is likely evidence of all the fake invoices paying Cohen back.

I get this. But this all assumes it's properly considered a campaign contribution, going back to the "you're damned if you do, damned if you don't" comments earlier. In terms of bad acts, I feel like it would have been much, much worse to use campaign funds as hush money to make these payoffs. No sympathy here for Trump supporters, but if I were one, I'd be pretty livid if I donated to Trump's campaign and found out that my donations were used to pay off Stormy Daniels. To me, that's Trump personal business, not campaign business, and using campaign funds for those purposes should definitely be a campaign finance violation.

I’m not trying to create a what-a-about here, just looking for an explanation. John Edwards was acquitted for something that appears to be exactly the same thing Cohen plead guilty to and accused Trump doing. Is there a difference?

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:19 pmNo sympathy here for Trump supporters, but if I were one, I'd be pretty livid if I donated to Trump's campaign and found out that my donations were used to pay off Stormy Daniels. To me, that's Trump personal business, not campaign business, and using campaign funds for those purposes should definitely be a campaign finance violation.

I think there's a long, LONG history of people being livid when they find out what Trump did with money they gave him. From the defunct, sham of a school to the charity set up to benefit him alone.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:27 pm I’m not trying to create a what-a-about here, just looking for an explanation. John Edwards was acquitted for something that appears to be exactly the same thing Cohen plead guilty to and accused Trump doing. Is there a difference?

A comparison article (haven't read it through yet).

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:59 am
And one from Fox(!). Not as brutal as a John Oliver rant (and poorly delivered in comparison), but let's just say I bet more than 95% of Fox watchers hated hearing that.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/582609675000 ... show-clips

I remember seeing Cavuto when Fox started up some 20 years ago. I swear to god he looks exactly the same. Android? Golem? Fairy in a bottle? Genie?

More seriously I thought it was a good cover of Trump’s lies even if he gave Trump too much credit for the economy.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:49 am Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organization CFO, Is Granted Immunity in Cohen Probe

WSJ: Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organ ... ohen Probe

Another rat!



The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

This is how I see Trump today.

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:50 am If he had gone on to lose the elections and Cohen was pleading guilty, it's highly likely Trump would have been indicted for his role as well. He committed a criminal act. I suspect he's committed many, many more.

If Trump had lost, do you think there would have been a DOJ investigation into Russian collusion at all? Honest question, not rhetorical. I'd think he'd have just gone back to being a bad-TV star and small-time crook, and the world would have moved on. But if the DOJ had investigated Clinton or campaign meddling in general, he might have been ensnared anyway...although not at this thorough level of detail.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:54 pm

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:50 am If he had gone on to lose the elections and Cohen was pleading guilty, it's highly likely Trump would have been indicted for his role as well. He committed a criminal act. I suspect he's committed many, many more.

If Trump had lost, do you think there would have been a DOJ investigation into Russian collusion at all? Honest question, not rhetorical. I'd think he'd have just gone back to being a bad-TV star and small-time crook, and the world would have moved on. But if the DOJ had investigated Clinton or campaign meddling in general, he might have been ensnared anyway...although not at this thorough level of detail.

If you listen to the Maddow clip (above) she mentions that Cohen was co-owner of a taxi company that got nabbed for tax evasion. It's possible that he would have been a thread to pull on and end up with Trump if they raided his office for that instead of Russia. He was legally screwed without Trump.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:54 pm If Trump had lost, do you think there would have been a DOJ investigation into Russian collusion at all? Honest question, not rhetorical. I'd think he'd have just gone back to being a bad-TV star and small-time crook, and the world would have moved on. But if the DOJ had investigated Clinton or campaign meddling in general, he might have been ensnared anyway...although not at this thorough level of detail.

I do not but I have to believe the CIA, NSA, ICE, etc... all would be. Instead of putting in pieces to deny and apologize for the office, they'd have directives to shut shit down, probably abusing the powers of the executive office in a different direction. I'd be angry but at least the road to hell would be paved with good intention instead of graft and felonious personal gain.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:49 am
The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

A mentally unstable man who relies on the praise and approval of others to function has just been, in short order, betrayed by three of his closest confidants and advisers. I'm guessing that he'll A) become incredibly paranoid, B) stop listening to any advisers, and C) lash out irrationally.

It's gonna be an interesting ride.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:36 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:49 am
The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

A mentally unstable man who relies on the praise and approval of others to function has just been, in short order, betrayed by three of his closest confidants and advisers. I'm guessing that he'll A) become incredibly paranoid, B) stop listening to any advisers, and C) lash out irrationally.

It's gonna be an interesting ride.

Like ... riding nukes?

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:36 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:49 am
The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

A mentally unstable man who relies on the praise and approval of others to function

Not to mention loyalty!

Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:43 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:36 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:49 am
The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

A mentally unstable man who relies on the praise and approval of others to function has just been, in short order, betrayed by three of his closest confidants and advisers. I'm guessing that he'll A) become incredibly paranoid, B) stop listening to any advisers, and C) lash out irrationally.

It's gonna be an interesting ride.

Like ... riding nukes?

Let's hope not: "Trump directs Pompeo to delay North Korea trip, saying 'we are not making sufficient progress' on denuclearization"

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:49 am Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organization CFO, Is Granted Immunity in Cohen Probe

WSJ: Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organ ... ohen Probe

Another rat!



The tweets should get REALLY interesting now. I'm expecting lots of 1's typed instead of exclamation marks.

You know it's a worthless Witch Hunt when they have to offer immunity to the guy who supplies the Eyes of Newt.

(shamelessly stolen from elsewhere on the interwebs)

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:54 pm

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:50 am If he had gone on to lose the elections and Cohen was pleading guilty, it's highly likely Trump would have been indicted for his role as well. He committed a criminal act. I suspect he's committed many, many more.

If Trump had lost, do you think there would have been a DOJ investigation into Russian collusion at all? Honest question, not rhetorical. I'd think he'd have just gone back to being a bad-TV star and small-time crook, and the world would have moved on. But if the DOJ had investigated Clinton or campaign meddling in general, he might have been ensnared anyway...although not at this thorough level of detail.

I think if he'd just calmed the f down and acted like a human being instead of coming out of the gate with accusations against everyone outside his family, while issuing claims of godhood, he'd have been less likely to have all his missteps so closely watched. You reap what you sow...and this dumb motherf*@#$ was like the goddamn Hank Aaron of agriculture when it comes to sowing.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:19 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:59 am

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:47 am (2) I’m more or less clear on the criminality of Cohen’s tax evasion charges, but I don’t understand the campaign finance violation. Cohen pled guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment. Ok, but that seems to require a pretty expansive view of what constitutes a contribution to a political campaign. On NPR the other day, I heard some talking head (an FEC commisioner appointed by Bush, for what it’s worth), opining that it’s a stretch to call the payoff to Daniels a campaign contribution. To put it another way, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels, wouldn’t he run into a charge of improperly using campaign funds for personal purposes?

So, this is the main thing... Trump could use his own money and pay off Daniels. Trump didn't want to do that.

If he wants to first put it into the campaign (from himself, to the campaign) he is allowed to do that (but report it) to any amount. If someone else makes that payment (Key being: evidence that it was discussed this was to help the campaign), they are limited to a much smaller amount and it too must be reported. Add to it that Trump directed it, and helped scheme about layering the payment through a company Cohen owns and Cohen would then be re-paid via fake invoices to Trump's Campaign Company....

If Trump took campaign funds and used it directly to pay off Daniels, he was free to do that, but that would have been too public - and to avoid the 'for personal use', he would have needed to be clear it was to keep his campaign free of the story of his affair... Trump didn't want to do that.
Also, one person couldn't donate the funds (limits). The money needs to be reported.

The crime that Cohen committed is that he donated this with the intent to not 'help his buddy keep his marriage' -- but to help his campaign. And they hid it.
I beleive the problem for Trump is that he was also totally wrapped up in it and there is likely evidence of all the fake invoices paying Cohen back.

I get this. But this all assumes it's properly considered a campaign contribution, going back to the "you're damned if you do, damned if you don't" comments earlier. In terms of bad acts, I feel like it would have been much, much worse to use campaign funds as hush money to make these payoffs. No sympathy here for Trump supporters, but if I were one, I'd be pretty livid if I donated to Trump's campaign and found out that my donations were used to pay off Stormy Daniels. To me, that's Trump personal business, not campaign business, and using campaign funds for those purposes should definitely be a campaign finance violation.

I think it's like this. Money doesn't need to go to the campaign in order to be a campaign contribution. Like, say you bought lunches for all of a campaign's staffers over the campaign. No money is going to the campaign, but it's clearly payments intended to help the campaign, not functionally different than contributing that amount to the campaign. This has to be the case, or else you could get around all campaign finance regulations by just paying for things as opposed to giving money to the campaign.

This is basically the same type of situation - it's a payment made for something specifically intended to help a political campaign. Except instead of buying lunches, it's hush money to a mistress with damaging things to say about the candidate at a critical time.

The same is true of advertising. If I go up to the campaign and ask for suggestions for an advertisement I'm going to run with my own money, that's a campaign contribution. They have to pretend to never communicate and be "independent" for it not to count. If they caught a conversation on tape where Trump directs a subordinate to purchase ad buys and not report it, it's the same campaign finance violation.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:19 pm I get this. But this all assumes it's properly considered a campaign contribution

Yeah, they basically have that on one of Cohen's tapes that was made public. They probably have even more evidence. Plus, they now have Cohen's guilty plea and his statement under oath. But don't forget they have quite a bit of hard evidence we've not ever seen (and didn't even need to invoke, apparently)

Democracy depends on free and fair elections. Manafort's corruption and Cohen's admission of paying off bad stories both show Trump was willing to break the already loose rules of campaign finance.

It's a very short jump from there to accepting foreign assistance.

An Junior indictment?

I love it especially later in the summer.

Once upon a time cavorting with women of ill repute was a death knell for a political career. Paying them off a heinous example of a person's unsuitability for public service.

Now we have pundits arguing that doing it with campaign funds might be a crime, technically, but it's no worse than jaywalking, so everyone should just relax.

And 1/2 the country agreeing with them.

The silver lining to Trump's presidency is that it bore the #MeToo movement, an unprecedented number of women running for office, etc. We can only hope that Trump's use and abuse of women will lead to more women in power than at any time in our country's history.