Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote:He's a criminal because he decided crimes were the best way to get what he wanted. He was thoughtful, motivated and extensive in his planning and execution of those crimes.

He's not a kid who submitted to peer pressure and shoplifted some cigarettes (he's old enough to remember when cigarettes were available within easy reach like everything else ).

He's a career criminal.

The latest Trump political donor to draw controversy is Li Yang, a 45-year-old Florida entrepreneur from China who founded a chain of spas and massage parlors that included the one where New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft was recently busted for soliciting prostitution. She made the news this week when the Miami Herald reported that last month she had attended a Super Bowl viewing party at Donald Trump’s West Palm Beach golf club and had snapped a selfie with the president during the event. Though Yang no longer owns the spa Kraft allegedly visited, the newspaper noted that other massage parlors her family runs have “gained a reputation for offering sexual services.” (She told the newspaper she has never violated the law.) Beyond this sordid tale, there is another angle to the strange story of Yang: She runs an investment business that has offered to sell Chinese clients access to Trump and his family. And a website for the business—which includes numerous photos of Yang and her purported clients hobnobbing at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Palm Beach—suggests she had some success in doing so.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:21 pm

Enough wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:19 pm

Zarathud wrote:The "otherwise blameless life" statement inflicted terrible damage on the judicial system's integrity. Putin really received an incredible return on his investment in Trump/Manafort for damage to the U.S.

This. I am persuaded by some of the defense but his comment is so stupid.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

FWIW Popehat seems to view it as typical judge bullshitting.

Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager for President Donald Trump, entered Virginia federal court on Thursday facing a recommended sentence of 19 to 24 years, and left with a sentence of less than four years. Many people are outraged by what they see as an unreasonably lenient penalty for an unrepentant crook, and have accused United States District Judge T. S. Ellis of bias. Others have decried the sentence as an example of America offering two tiers of justice: one for the rich (and more often white) and one for the poor (and more often not white).

Criticizing American criminal justice is fitting and proper. But there are two kinds of critiques—simplistic ones, which let the larger system off the hook, and complicated ones, which point out that many factors combined to get Manafort the dramatic break he enjoyed. Any criticism of Ellis as an individual is woefully inadequate. The American criminal-justice system works at every stage and every level to give chances to people like Manafort and deny them to poorer people.
. . .
The system isn’t broken because Manafort got four years rather than the 19-year recommendation that the sentencing guidelines spat out. The system is broken because other people get the long sentence—because other poorer and often darker people don’t get the same chances. It’s broken at every level, in obvious and obscure ways. Blaming the injustice on a single judge, like Ellis, is an oversimplified evasion of the problem.

hepcat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:52 am Trump: The only choice for Evangelical hypocrites the world over. We really need to get rid of their power in this country.

Default wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:30 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:52 am Trump: The only choice for Evangelical hypocrites the world over. We really need to get rid of their power in this country.

It's a last gasp for them. They have been losing membership, as fewer of their children stay in that group. The only people that think they have influence after 45* are other evangelicals. They just don't want to believe it.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:26 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:47 pmYeah, the USAF officer corps is famously and weirdly Evangelical for some reason.

Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:55 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:47 pmYeah, the USAF officer corps is famously and weirdly Evangelical for some reason.

They have a built-in predisposition to having faith in things they can't see to keep them going. The other branches are down in the dirt and on the water, so they have no basically invisible forces they rely on to function.

Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:55 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:47 pmYeah, the USAF officer corps is famously and weirdly Evangelical for some reason.

They have a built-in predisposition to having faith in things they can't see to keep them going. The other branches are down in the dirt and on the water, so they have no basically invisible forces they rely on to function.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:54 pm

Default wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:30 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:52 am Trump: The only choice for Evangelical hypocrites the world over. We really need to get rid of their power in this country.

It's a last gasp for them. They have been losing membership, as fewer of their children stay in that group. The only people that think they have influence after 45* are other evangelicals. They just don't want to believe it.

Except they believe that white Evangelicals control the U.S. military, and so they expect armed white Evangelicals to be in a position of power when civilization collapses.

The scary question is whether the white Evangelical component of the U.S. military believes this too.

Roger Stone may be regretting ever publishing the paperback version of his 2016 campaign book.

Stone is set to appear Thursday in front of federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson -- just a day after she sentenced his former lobbying colleague Paul Manafort to prison -- for a status hearing that was initially set to hash out pretrial issues and potentially set a trial date.

But Stone's behavior in recent weeks testing the limits of his gag order after he and his attorney plotted a book publicity tour could also dominate the morning's proceedings. The judge is clearly unhappy with him about the book's availability, and has told him he's crossed a line that she already warned him should not be crossed.

Jackson, who's been through situations like this before in Manafort's case, hasn't yet told Stone the consequences, if any. She may on Thursday.
...
While he was initially allowed to speak publicly about his case, Jackson slapped Stone's case with an expected but limited gag order. Minutes before it came in on February 15, Stone realized that a new introduction to his book, which was already available through booksellers, critiqued special counsel Robert Mueller and could irk the judge.
...
In the hours and days after that hearing, Stone's legal team debated how the book might fit with the revised, stricter gag order. They hadn't raised the issue with her at the hearing.

"Any violation of this order will be a basis for revoking your bond and detaining you pending trial," Jackson told Stone when she set the stricter gag order. "So I want to be clear: Today I gave you a second chance. But this is not baseball. There will not be a third chance."

Stone's team then waited a week to inform the court of the paperback release of his book about President Donald Trump's election.

The House voted overwhelmingly and in bipartisan fashion to urge the Justice Department to publicly release the entirety of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report into Russian interference in the 2016 election, once completed.

The move is an attempt to “send a clear signal both to the American people and the Department of Justice” that lawmakers expect to see the full account of Mueller’s work, according to the House Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).

The final vote count was 420 in favor, with no one voting no. Four lawmakers voted “present.”

But the resolution by itself cannot force attorney general William P. Barr to publish more of the report than he intends to — and that is why even some of the Republicans supporting it complained that the measure was a waste of time.

Roger Stone's trial will start Nov. 5, and the judge presiding over the case said Thursday that she expects it to last two weeks.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, in setting the trial date, said she didn't wish to waste time talking about the re-release of a book Stone published in 2017, a move that could have been considered a violation of his partial gag order. The judge said she was taking it "under advisement."

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:24 am Lots of reporting today that Rod Rosenstein has decided to stay on at DOJ for a longer time. (Last month DOJ said he was making plans to leave about now.)

In court Tuesday, Trump administration attorneys told a three-judge panel that Maryland and the District of Columbia have “no authority” to sue the president in his official capacity over payments the president’s business accepts from state and foreign governments.
...
The attorneys general for Maryland and D.C. contend that the president is illegally profiting from the Trump International Hotel’s foreign and state government visitors and that his financial gain comes at the expense of local competitors.
...
Early questions from the bench included whether the applying the clause to a president in office might discourage private business people from seeking election.

Judges also asked what real-world remedy the attorneys general would suggest, asking if divestment of a hotel or putting it into a blind trust would be a solution.

Divestment might be an “option,” said AliKhan while saying the attorneys general were looking to the court to declare what an emolument is, which could in turn help guide the design of the remedy. “My view is it covers any profit, gain or advantage” she said of an emolument, but stopped short of saying a Treasury bill or other passive investment would qualify.

The Circuit panel specifically is considering whether the District and Maryland have legal grounds — or standing — to sue the president in the first place. And the appeals court will consider the president’s request to dismiss the case outright or to take the unusual step of ordering the lower-court judge to permit a midstream appeal.

MSNBC wrote:BREAKING: In letter to Congress, AG Barr says he may be in a position to advise cmtes. of Special Counsel Mueller's principal conclusions from the investigation as soon as this weekend.

Zaxxon wrote:#itshappening

RunningMn9 wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:#itshappening

#NothingWillHappen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro