Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:25 pm Awesome. And they convicted him on the lie and nothing else. Sure he murdered those 4 coeds but at least we caught him lying about it.

I don't understand your easy dismissal of this kind of prosecutor activity. It's not like there was a trial and lying was the only charge they could make stick.

It's not "He murdered those 4 coeds but at least we caught him lying about it." It's "We showed him we could take him down hard for the bank heist, and in exchange for leniency he helped us take down the whole Mafia."

Obviously we don't yet know the degree to which Papadoofus is aiding the investigation because the investigation is ongoing and locked up tight. But historically, flipping small fish through plea deals is the way conspiracies are busted. It's what happens.

(I haven't read everything Mr. Fed has written on plea bargains, but I seem to recall that he has focused on prosecutors pressuring guilty pleas out of poorly-educated or poorly-defended suspects simply to keep the machinery of justice humming and to boost their own scores. There's no question of "cooperation agreements" in such cases because the suspect has nothing to offer.)

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:55 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:25 pm Awesome. And they convicted him on the lie and nothing else. Sure he murdered those 4 coeds but at least we caught him lying about it.

I don't understand your easy dismissal of this kind of prosecutor activity. It's not like there was a trial and lying was the only charge they could make stick.

It's not? I'll answer with this

I don't find "lied to the FBI" to be particularly compelling convictions.

when/if we see these small fry with small fry convictions actually make a difference, then I'll find them more compelling. Until then, meh. I admire your confidence that they will amount to something. I hope you're right. Just as I have little evidence that they aren't going to make a huge difference, it seems to me that you have little evidence that they will.

We'll see. I'll happily move from "meh" to "good show" when/if the time comes.

We know that he made false statements to the Feds about matters that were directly pertinent to the Russia investigation, and he attempted to destroy evidence that was also directly pertinent to the investigation. He wasn't tricked into some technical violation of the statute. Additionally, Mr Fed himself alludes to the possibility that he could be charged with attempted obstruction of justice (and who can you believe, if not the authority to which you appeal). And we have no idea whether or not there would have been other charges if he hadn't decided to co-operate, because Mueller and Co play their cards close to their chests and we therefore do not know whether or not they have anything else on him.

At any rate, it ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over until Bobby Three Sticks and his Scooby Gang close up shop (or Trump succeeds in closing it for them). Until then, I'd say folks are entirely free to cling to their choice of jaded cynicism, naive optimism or carefree indifference, as they see fit.

Thanks. Will do.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:54 pm At any rate, it ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over until Bobby Three Sticks and his Scooby Gang close up shop (or Trump succeeds in closing it for them).

I think "Scooby Gang" is a term for unsubstantiated-theory-mongers Louise Mensch, Claude Taylor, & company.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:25 pm Awesome. And they convicted him on the lie and nothing else. Sure he murdered those 4 coeds but at least we caught him lying about it.

If/when the FBI uses his testimony (as moliere suggests) to burn someone who matters on something that matters, I'll be satisfied. In the mean time, justice served, I guess?

As reminder, this is where we started:

I don't find "lied to the FBI" to be particularly compelling convictions.

After reading Max's quotes, that holds doubly true now.

Would you prefer lying to law enforcement wasn't punishable? Wonder how that would turn out.

Edit: Never mind, I see your answer will be you aren't compelled.

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:49 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:54 pm At any rate, it ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over until Bobby Three Sticks and his Scooby Gang close up shop (or Trump succeeds in closing it for them).

I think "Scooby Gang" is a term for unsubstantiated-theory-mongers Louise Mensch, Claude Taylor, & company.

I was setting up an "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" joke.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:25 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:49 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:54 pm At any rate, it ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over until Bobby Three Sticks and his Scooby Gang close up shop (or Trump succeeds in closing it for them).

I think "Scooby Gang" is a term for unsubstantiated-theory-mongers Louise Mensch, Claude Taylor, & company.

I was setting up an "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" joke.

Ah. Too late. The Marshal of the Supreme Court has copyrighted the term.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:22 pm Would you prefer lying to law enforcement wasn't punishable? Wonder how that would turn out.

Edit: Never mind, I see your answer will be you aren't compelled.

Exactly. Might as well get them to plead to shoplifting.

These guys are in the middle of subverting your entire political system and Mueller's got them on "lied to the FBI"? That's not encouraging.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:29 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:22 pm Would you prefer lying to law enforcement wasn't punishable? Wonder how that would turn out.

Edit: Never mind, I see your answer will be you aren't compelled.

Exactly. Might as well get them to plead to shoplifting.

These guys are in the middle of subverting your entire political system and Mueller's got them on "lied to the FBI"? That's not encouraging.

This is entirely how flipping works.

Do they not have conspiracies or organized crime in Canada?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:29 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:22 pm Would you prefer lying to law enforcement wasn't punishable? Wonder how that would turn out.

Edit: Never mind, I see your answer will be you aren't compelled.

Exactly. Might as well get them to plead to shoplifting.

These guys are in the middle of subverting your entire political system and Mueller's got them on "lied to the FBI"? That's not encouraging.

Isn't that how plea deals work? The foot soldiers are allowed to plead a light charge in exchange for singing about Fat Donald. It's a good tradeoff if Fat Donald and his capos go down.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:38 pm
Isn't that how plea deals work? The foot soldiers are allowed to plead a light charge in exchange for singing about Fat Donald. It's a good tradeoff if Fat Donald and his capos go down.

God this is exhausting.

My first comment was in response to a BBC poster showing the results of Mueller's investigation thus far. Manafort and Cohen are almost certainly going to testify against Drumpf, and they have other convictions besides "Lied to the FBI".

The rest were a bunch of nothing as far as "results thus far". Lied to the FBI? well no fucking shit. That's the bare minimum I would expect from this viper's nest. In my opinion the results of the Meuller investigation thus far is "not compelling".

The graphic was "not compelling" because outside of Cohen and Manafort, there were no substantial convictions or pleas.

Will some of those pleas be converted into taking down king pins? GODS I hope yes. Do we have evidence that that is in fact happening? Are we just hoping for the best? I too am hoping for the best.

In the meantime, the graphic was "not compelling" to me. I've been sitting here quietly like a good little mouse waiting for Meuller to do his work, as long as it takes. I'm in no rush and expect him to be thorough. I'm patient

I hope at the end of it Drumpf is executed. While that is too much to hope for, I'm still hopeful. In the meantime, in the middle of the extensive and long investigation, I do not feel the results thus far are "compelling". I wouldn't be making that comment if the BBC didn't think it was a good idea to show the results thus far.

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:35 pm

This is entirely how flipping works.

Do they not have conspiracies or organized crime in Canada?

Well, no, but that's besides the point.

What evidence do you guys have that all these pleas are the result of agreeing to testify against higher ups? Compel me.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:58 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:35 pm

This is entirely how flipping works.

Do they not have conspiracies or organized crime in Canada?

Well, no, but that's besides the point.

What evidence do you guys have that all these pleas are the result of agreeing to testify against higher ups? Compel me.

It's known that the cooperators are cooperating. That's public information released by the court. Without even looking it up, I can tell you that Flynn, Gates, and Papadoolllluvus have pleas that depend on their further cooperation with Mueller's prosecutors.

Would the prosecutors have agreed to these terms without some indication that cooperation would help them?

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:30 pm It's known that the cooperators are cooperating. That's public information released by the court. Without even looking it up, I can tell you that Flynn, Gates, and Papadoolllluvus have pleas that depend on their further cooperation with Mueller's prosecutors.

Would the prosecutors have agreed to these terms without some indication that cooperation would help them?

First, by calling the cooperators cooperators, you're begging the question. If it's common knowledge, great. It isn't to me. I'm glad you named 3 specifically so that I can at least assume those are cooperating.

As to your second question, how the fuck would I know? Prosecutors make plea bargains all the time for reasons other than getting help with further investigations.

So I guess the answer is: Maybe? It depends? What details do we know about the current pleas?

The graphic didn't contain any further details and I'm not tracking each individual prosecution closely.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:37 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:30 pm It's known that the cooperators are cooperating. That's public information released by the court. Without even looking it up, I can tell you that Flynn, Gates, and Papadoolllluvus have pleas that depend on their further cooperation with Mueller's prosecutors.

Would the prosecutors have agreed to these terms without some indication that cooperation would help them?

First, by calling the cooperators cooperators, you're begging the question. If it's common knowledge, great. It isn't to me. I'm glad you named 3 specifically so that I can at least assume those are cooperating.

Flynn, Gates, and Papadapoulos are widely known to be cooperating. There is no mystery to it.

Awesome.

The way you know they're cooperating is that those guys are only pleading to minor charges, while Manafort is getting a whole raft of charges brought against him. The reason for that ain't that he's the only one doing crimes in that bunch.

As for any further proof, we're still in the middle of this, so it's way too early to say "He's just letting these guys off with a slap on the wrist in exchange for nothing!" Mueller's running an incredibly tight ship, so what we don't know about what Mueller has or is planning on doing could just about fill the Grand Canyon. Sure, it's possible that we look back after this is over and go "he didn't get anything out of them, and let them off too easy." But based on what we do know, I'd say that's unlikely, and it's way to early to get worked up over these lying to the FBI pleas.

Holman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:37 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:30 pm It's known that the cooperators are cooperating. That's public information released by the court. Without even looking it up, I can tell you that Flynn, Gates, and Papadoolllluvus have pleas that depend on their further cooperation with Mueller's prosecutors.

Would the prosecutors have agreed to these terms without some indication that cooperation would help them?

First, by calling the cooperators cooperators, you're begging the question. If it's common knowledge, great. It isn't to me. I'm glad you named 3 specifically so that I can at least assume those are cooperating.

Flynn, Gates, and Papadapoulos are widely known to be cooperating. There is no mystery to it.

I think you will be able to add Manafort to this list soon. He is being nailed to the wall by evidence with no relief in sight. I have imagine this conviction and the upcoming trial has all these guys in a cooperating mood all of a sudden.

Scoop20906 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:39 pm I think you will be able to add Manafort to this list soon. He is being nailed to the wall by evidence with no relief in sight.

Yay! He deserves it. Even outside of the context of this investigation specifically about Russian influence, he's got no problems working outside the law.

Trump's likely to pardon Manafort sooner or later. He definitely wants to, and the safeguards limiting Trump (such as they are) are falling one by one. If the Republicans hold onto both chambers of Congress in the mid-terms, I'd say that there's an 80%+ chance that he pardons Manafort by early next year.

You think it's as low as 80%?

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:57 am Trump's likely to pardon Manafort sooner or later. He definitely wants to, and the safeguards limiting Trump (such as they are) are falling one by one. If the Republicans hold onto both chambers of Congress in the mid-terms, I'd say that there's an 80%+ chance that he pardons Manafort by early next year.

Anyone who trusts Drumpf to save them, even if it means saving himself (drumpf) is a fool.

I don't disagree that exactly what you say will happen, will happen, but if I'm Manafort, can I afford to assume it will?

Also, look at all the trouble Drumpf has brought down on him. There's loyalty and then there's stupidity. I would imagine that none of these people are loyal because they value and respect loyalty. They're loyal because it's the best way to get what they want. If they aren't getting what they want, they'll bail without a blink of an eye.

Still, they are henchmen to the leader of the free world. That has to come with some perks, right?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:51 amStill, they are henchmen to the leader of the free world. That has to come with some perks, right?

You consider Trump to be the leader of the free world? Wow.

I, for one, do not.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:01 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:51 amStill, they are henchmen to the leader of the free world. That has to come with some perks, right?

You consider Trump to be the leader of the free world? Wow.

I, for one, do not.

His position is, which is why he's such a problem in that position. I hope the next president can get back to actually being the leader of the free world, and Trump hasn't decimated our ability to do that.

The thing with Manafort is that there are worse things than going to prison. Depending on the exact nature of his ties to Russia, his thinking might run more to how Putin rewards disloyalty than whether Trump rewards loyalty.

Max Peck wrote:The thing with Manafort is that there are worse things than going to prison. Depending on the exact nature of his ties to Russia, his thinking might run more to how Putin rewards disloyalty than whether Trump rewards loyalty.

Maybe Manafort is negotiating for witness protection for him and his family?

Paingod wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:02 am

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:01 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:51 amStill, they are henchmen to the leader of the free world. That has to come with some perks, right?

You consider Trump to be the leader of the free world? Wow.

I, for one, do not.

His position is, which is why he's such a problem in that position. I hope the next president can get back to actually being the leader of the free world, and Trump hasn't decimated our ability to do that.

I would even argue that he has abdicated that position, if not actively sought its destruction.

Scoop20906 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:12 am

Max Peck wrote:The thing with Manafort is that there are worse things than going to prison. Depending on the exact nature of his ties to Russia, his thinking might run more to how Putin rewards disloyalty than whether Trump rewards loyalty.

Maybe Manafort is negotiating for witness protection for him and his family?

With Donald "I hate the FBI" Trump and Vladimir "KGB" Putin looking for him? There is nowhere in the world he can hide.

Scoop20906 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:12 am

Max Peck wrote:The thing with Manafort is that there are worse things than going to prison. Depending on the exact nature of his ties to Russia, his thinking might run more to how Putin rewards disloyalty than whether Trump rewards loyalty.

Maybe Manafort is negotiating for witness protection for him and his family?

Who knows? One thing we do know is that he has requested to forgo his right to be present at upcoming pre-trial hearings. There must be some reason that he prefers to be in jail rather than out and about on the street.

President Trump is the leader of the free lunch.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:51 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:57 am Trump's likely to pardon Manafort sooner or later. He definitely wants to, and the safeguards limiting Trump (such as they are) are falling one by one. If the Republicans hold onto both chambers of Congress in the mid-terms, I'd say that there's an 80%+ chance that he pardons Manafort by early next year.

Anyone who trusts Drumpf to save them, even if it means saving himself (drumpf) is a fool.

I don't disagree that exactly what you say will happen, will happen, but if I'm Manafort, can I afford to assume it will?

Also, look at all the trouble Drumpf has brought down on him. There's loyalty and then there's stupidity. I would imagine that none of these people are loyal because they value and respect loyalty. They're loyal because it's the best way to get what they want. If they aren't getting what they want, they'll bail without a blink of an eye.

Still, they are henchmen to the leader of the free world. That has to come with some perks, right?

The number of high level cooperators (Flynn, Gates, Cohen) seems to indicate that most people don't trust Trump to pardon him (or are convinced that there are state-level offenses that they can be nailed on such that Trump can't effectively pardon them). Manafort would seem to be betting differently for whatever reason.

But regardless, I'm not saying whether he is wise in doing so, I just think that a pardon is pretty likely if the Republicans hold Congress. And still reasonably likely even if they don't, but then things get way more complicated.

Chaz wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:50 am You think it's as low as 80%?

It's hard to put anything at 100% given Trump's lizard brain. Then there's some unpredictability based upon what we don't know about the facts, and about what Trump thinks the facts are.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:46 am

Chaz wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:50 am You think it's as low as 80%?

It's hard to put anything at 100% given Trump's lizard brain. Then there's some unpredictability based upon what we don't know about the facts, and about what Trump thinks the facts are.

Or based on what the most recent Wormtongue whispers into his ear before Trump bites his head off and disposes of the carcass via Twitter.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:11 am The thing with Manafort is that there are worse things than going to prison. Depending on the exact nature of his ties to Russia, his thinking might run more to how Putin rewards disloyalty than whether Trump rewards loyalty.

Here's hoping.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:12 am I would even argue that he has abdicated that position, if not actively sought its destruction.

Abdicated implies freeing up the position for others to fill. Destruction implies the removal of the position from existence. I realize I'm being pedantic, but oh well.

The good thing is it that there are plenty of competent people willing and able to help move the world forward if Americans elect someone who doesn't want to do it.

You're leader of the free world because you took a leadership role. You've chosen to step back from that role, which means you're no longer the leader. That's how it works. You don't get all the perks of leadership without the responsibilities. If that's not clear to the inflated sense of importance that many Americans (such as most deployable Drumpf enthusiasts) believe they have, a few more years of Drumpf will disabuse them of that notion. It's clear to anyone paying attention.

Drumpf's shenanigans aren't stirring up the world order to America's benefit. Drumpf's shenanigans are stirring up the world order as it re-orders itself to reduce America's role in it. If you don't do the job, eventually you're going to be replaced. If there is no one to replace you, then the org restructures to remove the position entirely.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:50 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:12 am I would even argue that he has abdicated that position, if not actively sought its destruction.

Abdicated implies freeing up the position for others to fill. Destruction implies the removal of the position from existence. I realize I'm being pedantic, but oh well.

The good thing is it that there are plenty of competent people willing and able to help move the world forward if Americans elect someone who doesn't want to do it.

You're leader of the free world because you took a leadership role. You've chosen to step back from that role, which means you're no longer the leader. That's how it works. You don't get all the perks of leadership without the responsibilities. If that's not clear to the inflated sense of importance that many Americans (such as most deployable Drumpf enthusiasts) believe they have, a few more years of Drumpf will disabuse them of that notion. It's clear to anyone paying attention.

Drumpf's shenanigans aren't stirring up the world order to America's benefit. Drumpf's shenanigans are stirring up the world order as it re-orders itself to reduce America's role in it. If you don't do the job, eventually you're going to be replaced. If there is no one to replace you, then the org restructures to remove the position entirely.

Side note - I was thinking the other day how much the leadership of the free world, and American greatness stemmed from WW II:

Cold War
Space flight
The internet

It's arguable that the only reason the USA took the lead in these is because, of the World powers going into the World Wars, only the USA wasn't devastated and needing to rebuild after the fighting.

All of Europe, a huge chunk of Russia, the Middle East and Mediterranean, Japan, China - all of which had massive damage done to their infrastructure, manpower, etc - all the US had to deal with in terms of destruction was Pearl Harbor.

And of course, now the USA is reverting to the pre-world Wars, pre-depression gilded age, and probably doing as much to create the environment for another devastating conflict as any other nation on the planet.

I think of it more like you're at a convention, everyone is a professional, some have more experience and are better leaders, but everyone is a leader. Someone will take the reins, and if everyone agrees, others will follow that person's lead, at the same time looking out for their own interests and wellbeing, and knowing what good leadership is, and supporting it.

If America's leadership had been poor, a lot fewer countries would be willing to be led.

America's leadership is not strong right now, despite many American professionals (diplomats, negotiatiors, etc, etc) trying to mitigate the damage (drumpf thinks of it as undermining) drumpf is doing. I mean, Drumpf is warning congress in public not to do their jobs. Behind closed doors that's terrible. In public? Wtf?

How America got there is less interesting to me at the moment (I'm sure it would make for fascinating documentary though) than what it means to the world as it stands, both during "normal" times and "drumpf" times.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:50 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:12 am I would even argue that he has abdicated that position, if not actively sought its destruction.

Abdicated implies freeing up the position for others to fill. Destruction implies the removal of the position from existence. I realize I'm being pedantic, but oh well.

Ahhh, thanks for clarifying. I just threw some words in there hoping they would make sense.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:26 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:50 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:12 am I would even argue that he has abdicated that position, if not actively sought its destruction.

Abdicated implies freeing up the position for others to fill. Destruction implies the removal of the position from existence. I realize I'm being pedantic, but oh well.

Ahhh, thanks for clarifying. I just threw some words in there hoping they would make sense.

Mr. President? Is that you?