# Paul Manafort breaches plea agreement, likely to receive 20+ years in jail



## Xzi (Nov 27, 2018)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c76d5a-f18d-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html

Seems like associates of Trump have a very hard time sticking to the truth on any given subject, although that's probably not a shocker to anybody.  This story broke yesterday and Trump is of course rage tweeting about it today.  It also broke today that Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange months before e-mails hacked by Russia were published.  Another piece of the puzzle fits into place:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...cret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

It feels like a lot more dominoes are getting ready to fall soon after the Democrat-majority Congress is seated.  Mueller's investigation is getting to about the length that the Watergate investigation was when it started to wrap up, so hang on to your butts.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 28, 2018)

That's a weird move. Assange is, in a way, imprisoned in an embassy for years now  It's not someone you can just pay a visit anonymously. So why did Manafort lie about this? Of course that sort of information comes to light, so why deny it in the first place? 

Of course it's pretty convenient to notice that Russians visited as well, but again : it's an embassy. That doesn't really show anything. In any case: I hope it'll lead to something.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 28, 2018)

They really crussified Assange after all the stuff he leaked. He public enemy number 1 for the U.S. And they are trying their best to slander this guy.

We found out with WikiLeaks that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party influenced the Republican Primaries and made sure that Trump was the Republican Nominee. Polls were showing that other Republican Canidates would’ve beaten Hillary in the General Election. She thought she had a better chance beating Trump because people didn’t like him.

Hillary blames WikiLeaks was the reason she lost the election, but why? It’s because she was doing illegal corrupt things that Wikileaks showed. And now she’s  targeting Assange and blaming him for colluding with Russians. Even if he did get the emails from the Russians how does that help her case? She still did illegal stuff.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 28, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Even if he did get the emails from the Russians how does that help her case?


It doesn't help Hillary's case because Hillary Clinton is not dealing with any sort of lawsuit or investigation.  She's not involved in Paul Manafort's (likely Trump-ordered) collusion with the Russians in any way.  Can we just _not_ with the whataboutism?

I do have a good reason for posting an update, though.  Turns out Manafort's lawyers were talking to Trump's lawyers about Mueller's questions and the answers being given the entire time.  Which means Trump very likely submitted a lot of written lies to Mueller based on what Manafort believed he was getting away with:

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawy...nafort-often-shared-mueller-questions-1234622

Mueller had requested a 10 day delay on Manafort's cooperation report so that he didn't have to reveal the fact that he was pulling the plea deal prior to Trump submitting written testimony.  The real 4D chess right here.  When the full investigation report drops, expect several counts of perjury and probably one or two counts of obstruction, in addition to either a collusion or conspiracy charge.


----------



## Viri (Nov 28, 2018)

SG854 said:


> They really crussified Assange after all the stuff he leaked. He public enemy number 1 for the U.S. And they are trying their best to slander this guy.


I hope one day he can get out. Likewise with Edward Snowden being banished to Russia. He deserves a pardon. Fuck the NSA!


----------



## Xzi (Nov 28, 2018)

Viri said:


> I hope one day he can get out. Likewise with Edward Snowden being banished to Russia. He deserves a pardon. Fuck the NSA!


Snowden deserves a pardon because he brought valuable information to the public.  Assange is essentially a foreign intelligence officer for exclusively Russian interests now, so fuck him.  Last net positive thing Wikileaks released was the Panama Papers, and they were released elsewhere anyway.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Hillary blames WikiLeaks was the reason she lost the election, but why? It’s because she was doing illegal corrupt things that Wikileaks showed. And now she’s  targeting Assange and blaming him for colluding with Russians. Even if he did get the emails from the Russians how does that help her case? She still did illegal stuff.


To be more precise: she lost the election because her one flaw* - using a private mail server rather than the government's - was framed as if it was somehow not even comparable but even worse than the numerous scandals that Donald Trump is involved in. Heck...his own child does the very same thing, so surely it's not THAT "illegal corrupt".


*okay: two, if you consider "using her influence in the party to chose her as presidential candidate over a better one" as something other than 'the way politics are'.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't help Hillary's case because Hillary Clinton is not dealing with any sort of lawsuit or investigation.  She's not involved in Paul Manafort's (likely Trump-ordered) collusion with the Russians in any way.  Can we just _not_ with the whataboutism?
> 
> I do have a good reason for posting an update, though.  Turns out Manafort's lawyers were talking to Trump's lawyers about Mueller's questions and the answers being given the entire time.  Which means Trump very likely submitted a lot of written lies to Mueller based on what Manafort believed he was getting away with:
> 
> ...


Right after Wikileaks told them that it was a false news they altered the original publication without announcing to anyone they did.

First it was absolute certainty he coluded, then they altered it so that they can avoid repercussion if people find out the story is not true by saying we are not 100% sure but “sources” say.

Wikileaks bets 1 million they never met.
Manafort says story is not true.
Gaurdian altered original article.
Their sources is “unnamed” Code for its all made up.

So no evidence for anything. They don’t present it. And Wikileaks has an extremely good track record for truth. Everything they have said was true.

The media is manipulating you to hate Assange, this isn’t new. And I highly doubt it’s an honest mistake and correction. They do this all the time, they purposely generate fake news to get clicks, then they edit the story after.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ell-manafort-wikileaks-story-softens-language

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> To be more precise: she lost the election because her one flaw* - using a private mail server rather than the government's - was framed as if it was somehow not even comparable but even worse than the numerous scandals that Donald Trump is involved in. Heck...his own child does the very same thing, so surely it's not THAT "illegal corrupt".
> 
> 
> *okay: two, if you consider "using her influence in the party to chose her as presidential candidate over a better one" as something other than 'the way politics are'.


I’m talking about the fact that Hillary approved $80 billion in weapons deal to Saudi Arabia which allowed the Kingdom to carry out a war in Yemen. That caused food shortages and thousands to die.

She believe that Wallstreet would best mange the economy which contradicted her promises.

From 1,700 of her emails we found out she was the primary architect of the war in Libya. The war in Libya left things in chaos which gave rise to radical Jihadists and triggered huge migration to Europe.

These were some of the things wikileaks leaked that caused her to election.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> First it was absolute certainty he coluded, then they altered it so that they can avoid repercussion if people find out the story is not true by saying we are not 100% sure but “sources” say.


The man who knows for certain is Robert Mueller.  And I'm guessing the release timing of the story isn't coincidence.  Obviously this is all speculation until the full investigation report comes to light, but I'm betting this information is at least part of what caused Manafort to break his plea deal and lie.  He didn't want to admit to further crimes that weren't covered by the plea deal.



SG854 said:


> So no evidence for anything. They don’t present it. And Wikileaks has an extremely good track record for truth. Everything they have said was true.


Horse shit.  Not everything they have posted has been corroborated by a second source, and they've grown blatantly more and more partisan since the 2016 election.  They're also very selective about what they omit (RNC docs and Russian government docs), and that's what you're willfully choosing not to see.


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 29, 2018)

Sucking the dick of your own fucked up intel/propaganda agencies just to score points online over Trump.

Noice.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The man who knows for certain is Robert Mueller.  And I'm guessing the release timing of the story isn't coincidence.  Obviously this is all speculation until the full investigation report comes to light, but I'm betting this information is at least part of what caused Manafort to break his plea deal and lie.  He didn't want to admit to further crimes that weren't covered by the plea deal.
> 
> 
> Horse shit.  Not everything they have posted has been corroborated by a second source, and they've grown blatantly more and more partisan since the 2016 election.  They're also very selective about what they omit (RNC docs and Russian government docs), and that's what you're willfully choosing not to see.


Name specifics on what they omit. What specifics do they exaclty omit so I can read up on it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Name specifics on what they omit. What specifics do they exaclty omit so I can read up on it.


https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/1...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wikileaks-hid-documents-showing-syrian-deposits-in-russian-bank

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-russian-hackers-had-rnc-data-but-didnt-release-it

Assange himself admits that Wikileaks doesn't publish anything on Trump or the Republicans.  His only excuse is that they "don't have anything more damaging than what comes out of his own mouth," but that's a poor excuse.  If Wikileaks goal is transparency, then you're not going to get that by only publishing documents from specific political parties or countries.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I’m talking about the fact that Hillary approved $80 billion in weapons deal to Saudi Arabia which allowed the Kingdom to carry out a war in Yemen. That caused food shortages and thousands to die.
> 
> She believe that Wallstreet would best mange the economy which contradicted her promises.
> 
> ...


That's pretty bad, indeed. Luckily, she didn't become president, and the current one would never do such a thing.

Well...except, that in reality Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia after only a couple months in office.

As for your next two phrases: care to share some sources? I've got a feeling that this "we" that discovered those bits of info aren't out for the truth but for slandering.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/1...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/wikileaks-hid-documents-showing-syrian-deposits-in-russian-bank
> 
> ...


For those articles it’s acussations without proof.

The articles mentions that Russians hacked both the DNC and the RNC, but we know that there was no Russian hack.

They were leaked because Podesta replied to an Email and gave his password away. This wasn’t a high profile hack. That’s him not being careful. Yet Hillary knows this and still blamed that Russia hacked and gave the emails to Assange without any proof.

It’s just scapegoating. And it makes me supicious that the article mentions Russians hacked both the DNC and the RNC, when they didn’t even give the DNC emails to Assange to begin with. So what makes me think they did the same with the RNC.

Assange himself said those claims of missing Emails are false. It clearly says that in the Article you linked. And he threatened the Daily Dot with retaliation for posting false claims.



Taleweaver said:


> That's pretty bad, indeed. Luckily, she didn't become president, and the current one would never do such a thing.
> 
> Well...except, that in reality Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia after only a couple months in office.
> 
> As for your next two phrases: care to share some sources? I've got a feeling that this "we" that discovered those bits of info aren't out for the truth but for slandering.


I’m only saying why Hilary lost. I remember specifically people say they would rather vote Trump, even many Bernie Supporters. Me saying why Hillary lost doesn’t mean I support everything Trump. I’m only giving reason why people did.

I never stated you specifically that you are just slandering, I’m specifically talking about the Democratic politicians which I see seperate from the voters.

It’s slandering because it’s accusations without proof. They been trying to ruin this mans reputation and trying to get people to turn on him without any evidence for their accusations. It’s Russia this and Russia that.

I already stated my source Wikileaks.


----------



## radicalwookie (Nov 29, 2018)

please for the love of god could you please leave at least Temp free of this politics toxicity


----------



## ShonenJump (Nov 29, 2018)

radicalwookie said:


> please for the love of god could you please leave at least Temp free of this politics toxicity


then change your preferences so they won't show up


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 29, 2018)

Wouldn't friends of a(ny) president receive presidential pardon anyway?


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 29, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Wouldn't friends of a(ny) president receive presidential pardon anyway?


https://nypost.com/2018/11/28/trump-says-pardon-for-paul-manafort-still-a-possibility/


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The articles mentions that Russians hacked both the DNC and the RNC, but we know that there was no Russian hack.


There's no discussion to be had here if we can't agree on the facts, and we obviously can't.  Every US intelligence agency confirmed that it was state-sponsored Russian hackers that went after the DNC/RNC.  Specifically the GRU.  At the time, everybody was trying to portray these hackers as "Guccifer 2.0," including Roger Stone who is likely now facing indictment from the Mueller investigation.  His associate, Jerome Corsi, is expecting to spend the rest of his life in jail after rejecting a supposed plea deal.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/29/roger...-corsi-i-might-die-in-jail-for-helping-trump/



			
				NYPost said:
			
		

> Conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, who is an associate of Roger Stone, said Wednesday that he “might die in jail” and admitted he wanted to get stolen Hillary Clinton emails to the Trump campaign.



In any case, we know Trump has been getting played like a fiddle by Mueller throughout this investigation, and the noose is now starting to tighten:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...eller-just-played-donald-trump-like-a-fiddle/

We're going to see indictments for all that "nothing" Trump has done soon enough, so just be patient.



EDIT: Just as I say that, there's new information today.  Turns out Trump was planning to build a tower in Moscow, and these plans were being made during the 2016 campaign.  Michael Cohen recently confessed to this:

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/...-lawyer-is-making-a-surprise-court-appearance

Cohen also now has a plea agreement with the Mueller investigation, in addition to the plea agreement he had with the Southern district of New York.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There's no discussion to be had here if we can't agree on the facts, and we obviously can't.  Every US intelligence agency confirmed that it was state-sponsored Russian hackers that went after the DNC/RNC.  Specifically the GRU.  At the time, everybody was trying to portray these hackers as "Guccifer 2.0," including Roger Stone who is likely now facing indictment from the Mueller investigation.  His associate, Jerome Corsi, is expecting to spend the rest of his life in jail after rejecting a supposed plea deal.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/11/29/roger...-corsi-i-might-die-in-jail-for-helping-trump/
> 
> ...


The Intelligence Agency said it was Russia without any evidence. And we know they’ve been working to promote Hillary.

That first link says he was an intermediary but doesn’t explain how the Emails were leaked.

We know how they got leaked because Podesta fell for an Email scam. Someone tricked him that he needed to change his password and he typed it. It could’ve been anyone and not specifically Russia. It’s a simple scam a 12 year old could do it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...28/13456368/how-john-podesta-email-got-hacked

Even if Russia gave the Emails to Assange you give no reason as to why this is a bad thing. Why is it bad that he is exposing the corrupt politics of the Hilary campaign. The only reason you gave was the he’s working for Russia so F*** him. 

Shouldn’t we know that Hillary screwed over Bernie Sanders. Shouldn’t we know that what they are doing behind the scenes is manipulative. So why should Assange be criminalized? Or should he be considered a criminal only because people try link him with Trump and Russia. And if they never linked to Trump to begin with then would have people respected what Assange did.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The Intelligence Agency said it was Russia without any evidence. And we know they’ve been working to promote Hillary.


Not intelligence 'agency.' _Agencies.  _As in every single US intelligence agency.  It doesn't get any more concrete than that, so ignoring it is just an impassable wall of willful ignorance.  You're not going to believe any source I post if you won't believe US intelligence, and I'm not going to sit here and bicker about the definition of "fake news."



SG854 said:


> Even if Russia gave the Emails to Assange you give no reason as to why this is a bad thing. Why is it bad that he is exposing the corrupt politics of the Hilary campaign. The only reason you gave was the he’s working for Russia so F*** him.


It's entirely illegal to gather opposition research from foreign sources, for one.  It's conspiracy or collusion if you lie about it on top of everything else.  And if Trump personally ordered it, he's fucked.  He's been rage tweeting about this so much because his lawyers know exactly how fucked he is, even if you don't yet.


Edit: Holy shit we've got another update that just came in recently.  Federal agents raided the office of one of Trump's tax lawyers this morning, Ed Burke:

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 29, 2018)

Just a reminder here, but every intelligence agency, and the joint chiefs of staff wanted JFK to authorize an invasion of Cuba rather than a blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If this was the course that was taken, nuclear war was likely to proceed. We’re talking about organizations that executed MK Ultra and pushed Operation Northwoods. 

Using any institutions non-fact supplied testimony is generally a bad idea for matters this serious. I think a more poignant argument at this point, is Cohens plea of guilt in the charge of lying to Congress about the machinations of the Trump Tower situation, along with the other charges that other associates involved have pled to. 

On the other side we also have been provided with evidence that the DNC did in fact rig the election, by the stonewalling of Bernie Sanders. He essentially never had a shot at the nomination because the choice was made before the primaries. It would be Clinton since President Obama’s tenure was over. 

All in all, I think this speaks volumes to the corruption and buddy-in-pocket politics wreaking havoc in our federal government.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> On the other side we also have been provided with evidence that the DNC did in fact rig the election, by the stonewalling of Bernie Sanders. He essentially never had a shot at the nomination because the choice was made before the primaries. It would be Clinton since President Obama’s tenure was over.


Look, I supported Bernie Sanders and would've much rather seen him as the nominee for the Democrats.  That said, there's no evidence whatsoever that the primary was rigged.  When Bernie lost most of the Southern states, it was entirely expected.  Despite Bernie's history of activism in favor of the black community, they largely voted for Hillary in the majority.

I blame the media for his loss far more than I blame Hillary.  Every channel was 24/7 Trump and Bernie got near zero coverage despite being a populist who was a lot more likely to follow through on his promises.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> . It also broke today that Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange months before e-mails hacked by Russia were published


Wikileaks has vehemently denied this and has offered a million or more for proof that it happened. This is what people mean when they say fake news, when some hearsay is treated as if it's solid fact like this. When you hear something, you don't fucking publish an article on it, you look into it, and if you can't find anything, guess what you do? Move on! If there's nothing solid to report on, then don't fucking report it as news. Christ it's just a basic thing that should be agreed on, but people all over the mainstream media just spout lines from "anonymous sources" and friends of friends of friends who are an aide to someone in the White House.

Also, Xzi, I really think you should keep your hopes down. People have been saying that Mueller is going to find stuff about Trump relating to Russians, but my man, it hasn't happened, and I have to ask, you do know that Manafort is being charged with, right? It's tax fraud and other stuff, and uh oh, he also failed to register as a foreign agent... for Ukraine, the country that seems to almost be on the brink of war with the big bad Russians, right?

Xzi, what is it? He committed fraud and lobbied for Ukraine, the enemy of Russia, and tried to save his ass by telling some who were involved what to say. That's a big no-no, but *how the fuck does a chairman for a campaign who had power in the campaign for 58 days, committed fraud and lobbying for an enemy of Russia prove that Donald Trump is involved in a massive overarching conspiracy with the Russians to subvert and entire election secretly?*


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Wikileaks has vehemently denied this and has offered a million or more for proof that it happened.


Manafort vehemently denied it happened too, but he's also a confirmed liar who is going to jail for lying.  Again, the person with all the evidence is Robert Mueller, and with the quickening pace of news about the investigation lately, you won't have to wait much longer for confirmation.  I might be way off base about the Wikileaks thing, we'll see, but taking their word as gospel without any supporting evidence is ridiculous.


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Look, I supported Bernie Sanders and would've much rather seen him as the nominee for the Democrats.  That said, there's no evidence whatsoever that the primary was rigged.  When Bernie lost most of the Southern states, it was entirely expected.  Despite Bernie's history of activism in favor of the black community, they largely voted for Hillary in the majority.
> 
> I blame the media for his loss far more than I blame Hillary.  Every channel was 24/7 Trump and Bernie got near zero coverage despite being a populist who was a lot more likely to follow through on his promises.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democrat-primary-elections-need-reform

"This repeated itself in other states. In Indiana, Sanders won the vote 44 to 39, but, after the super delegates had their say, Clinton was granted 46 delegates, versus Sanders’ 44. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the vote by a gaping margin (60% to 38%) and set a record for the largest number of votes ever, the screen read “16 Sanders, 16 Clinton”.

Sanders “lost” those states because hundreds of superdelegates had pledged their votes long before the primaries and caucuses began. By including those prearranged votes, running media tallies reinforced the inevitability of a Clinton win and the common perception that the Democratic primary was “rigged”. In June, the Associated Press went so far as to call the primary in Clinton’s favor – before Californians even had a chance to cast their votes"


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Manafort vehemently denied it happened too, but he's also a confirmed liar who is going to jail for lying.  Again, the person with all the evidence is Robert Mueller, and with the quickening pace of news about the investigation lately, you won't have to wait much longer for confirmation.  I might be way off base about the Wikileaks thing, we'll see, but taking their word as gospel without any supporting evidence is ridiculous.



Ok, one is a politician, and the other is a reputable source of leaked information that has constantly shown itself to be trustworthy. Now are you going to respond to the rest of my post or are you going to conveniently ignore it?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democrat-primary-elections-need-reform
> 
> "This repeated itself in other states. In Indiana, Sanders won the vote 44 to 39, but, after the super delegates had their say, Clinton was granted 46 delegates, versus Sanders’ 44. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the vote by a gaping margin (60% to 38%) and set a record for the largest number of votes ever, the screen read “16 Sanders, 16 Clinton”.
> 
> Sanders “lost” those states because hundreds of superdelegates had pledged their votes long before the primaries and caucuses began. By including those prearranged votes, running media tallies reinforced the inevitability of a Clinton win and the common perception that the Democratic primary was “rigged”. In June, the Associated Press went so far as to call the primary in Clinton’s favor – before Californians even had a chance to cast their votes"


A couple of superdelegates weren't going to make the difference.  This is what the map ended up looking like when all was said and done:







You could argue that states like Florida, Texas, and California have too much say in our electoral process, and I'd probably agree with you.  That said, winning all three was a pretty big indicator for which direction the political winds were blowing.  IMO older generations blew the possibility of a Sanders win, they were afraid he was too "radical."



Attacker3 said:


> Ok, one is a politician, and the other is a reputable source of leaked information that has constantly shown itself to be trustworthy. Now are you going to respond to the rest of my post or are you going to conveniently ignore it?


I don't see a need to respond to the rest of it, you're pretending like Manafort is the only individual involved here while Trump's personal lawyer is cooperating with Mueller and his tax lawyer was just raided this morning.  Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi are both likely to have had contact with Wikileaks as well.  The investigation is growing more robust by the second and we're hitting the endgame now since Trump has submitted his written testimony full of lies to Mueller.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> On the other side we also have been provided with evidence that the DNC did in fact rig the election, by the stonewalling of Bernie Sanders. He essentially never had a shot at the nomination because the choice was made before the primaries. It would be Clinton since President Obama’s tenure was over.
> 
> All in all, I think this speaks volumes to the corruption and buddy-in-pocket politics wreaking havoc in our federal government.




the dnc has always had the last word in who their nominee would be. 
and sanders would've had to face the exact same bullshit narratives made up about hillary, but with the chance to also call him socialist every other minute, while also suffering from a voter base that thought 'it had this election in the bag' meaning people just didn't vote because they saw no need to when the opponent was the biggest liar and traitor since judas.
he'd have unjustly lost that election just as badly.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Attacker3 said:


> Wikileaks has vehemently denied this and has offered a million or more for proof that it happened.


so what you're saying is, a bold bluff that is eventually going to be called by mueller too, is all it takes to make you believe everything they say?


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I don't see a need to respond to the rest of it, you're pretending like Manafort is the only individual involved here while Trump's personal lawyer is cooperating with Mueller and his tax lawyer was just raided this morning. The investigation is growing more robust by the second and we're hitting the endgame now since Trump has submitted his written testimony full of lies to Mueller.



It's whatever dude, nothing is going to come of it and I'm getting tired of hearing about it for the last 2 years. It's been the endgame for 2 years, dude. I'm happy that you're excited for something big to happen to the mean person you don't like.

Also why the fuck is Trump's lawyer cooperating with Mueller an indication of guilt? If anything it shows there's nothing to hide. Also, if you're talking about Trump's tax lawyer, then apparently this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and he claims that nothing was found.

He's also an active politician and his City Hall office was raided, and the FBI agents took stuff out of his City Hall office. Let me repeat, *his law office was not searched, only his ward office*. He's also a Democrat, which is interesting, but I really doubt he's done anything wrong himself, considering that he's apparently been the subject of these investigations before.



Clydefrosch said:


> so what you're saying is, a bold bluff that is eventually going to be called by mueller too, is all it takes to make you believe everything they say?



Why is Mueller being held up as the messiah? He caught someone committing tax fraud in his investigation into a conspiracy between Russia and Trump. Good for catching him, but what is he doing that's special or is absolutely DESTROYING Trump? Seems like he's just doing what the IRS should be doing. This is really grasping and straws, my dudes.




1. Trump's personal lawyer is cooperating
2. One man involved with Trump for a limited amount of time and had ties to enemies of Russia committed tax fraud and lobbied for Ukraine without registering.
3. Trump's former tax lawyer had his ward office raided with this law office left alone.

Nice endgame. Mueller so far has found nothing but a tax fraudster in 2 years of investigation. Either the FBI as a whole is totally inept, with people consisting of it having a combined IQ of 60, or perhaps there is nothing to be found? Make your choice.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> It's whatever dude, nothing is going to come of it and I'm getting tired of hearing about it for the last 2 years. It's been the endgame for 2 years, dude. I'm happy that you're excited for something big to happen to the mean person you don't like.


It's been the endgame since the beginning of the investigation?  I guess that makes sense if you don't think about it.  There was no possibility of entering into the endgame before Trump had submitted some sort of testimony to the investigation.

I'm excited that justice is finally starting to rain down on the heads of blatant criminals, that's all.  Robert Mueller is one of the last remaining Republicans with integrity, and he doesn't do witch hunts.  "Nothing is going to happen" long ago became a false statement.  We're up to over 40 indictments and 10+ convictions, even if the investigation ended tomorrow it would be one of the most successful federal investigations in history.



Attacker3 said:


> Also why the fuck is Trump's lawyer cooperating with Mueller an indication of guilt? If anything it shows there's nothing to hide. Also, if you're talking about Trump's tax lawyer, then apparently this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and he claims that nothing was found.


Cohen is cooperating with Mueller because he plead guilty to several charges in SDNY, and then plead guilty to additional charges today.  So he has two separate plea agreements to help identify other crimes and criminals.  He's not cooperating "just for the fun of it," he's cooperating to keep his ass out of serious jail time like what Manafort is facing now.  Cohen has already implicated Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator for least one crime.

The federal raid on Ed Burke's office happened just this morning, so we won't have information on what investigators have found there for at least a week or two.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 30, 2018)

I hope to hell that whiny bitch Clinton doesn't try to run again. Don't need a nut job like her, I'd rather have Pence take over.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I hope to hell that whiny bitch Clinton doesn't try to run again. Don't need a nut job like her, I'd rather have Pence take over.


Zero percent chance of that.  Most Democrats are pushing hard for a white male candidate as a "compromise" to Republicans.  I just want somebody who's qualified and more likable than Hillary in general.  Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker are both strong options.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Zero percent chance of that.  Most Democrats are pushing hard for a white male candidate as a "compromise" to Republicans.  I just want somebody who's qualified and more likable than Hillary in general.  Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker are both strong options.



Agreed, literally anyone else would be better than her.


----------



## smf (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I just want somebody who's qualified and more likable than Hillary in general.



likeable politicians is where it all goes to shit.

You want your politicians to be unpopular.

Hillary would have been 100 times better than Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

smf said:


> likeable politicians is where it all goes to shit.
> 
> You want your politicians to be unpopular.
> 
> Hillary would have been 100 times better than Trump.


Oh I definitely agree, but it is possible to have more personality than a cactus and still be an effective president/legislator.  Clinton was far too passive with her appearances and her campaign.


----------



## smf (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Clinton was far too passive with her appearances and her campaign.



Yeah, I don't think any politician would have been able to deal with click bait Trump.

It's probably not even achievable, in years to come they'll probably just make his behaviour illegal.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Not intelligence 'agency.' _Agencies.  _As in every single US intelligence agency.  It doesn't get any more concrete than that, so ignoring it is just an impassable wall of willful ignorance.  You're not going to believe any source I post if you won't believe US intelligence, and I'm not going to sit here and bicker about the definition of "fake news."
> 
> 
> It's entirely illegal to gather opposition research from foreign sources, for one.  It's conspiracy or collusion if you lie about it on top of everything else.  And if Trump personally ordered it, he's fucked.  He's been rage tweeting about this so much because his lawyers know exactly how fucked he is, even if you don't yet.
> ...


We learned from he FISA Memo that the Obama Administration, The Inteligence Community, The FBI, The Department of Justice, and the Mainstream Media all colluded to get Hillary elected.

I don’t believe everything government tells me and neither should you. I need evidence first. They haven’t provided any and just make claims.

This is just like the JFK magic bullet. The government may not have started the rumor but they perpetuated it to distract people from the corruption they did. The same with the Russia Collusion, its just a distraction to get people focusing all their time and research on Russia to take away corruption from Hillary Clinton to shift attention off her.

Right after WikiLeaks she right away blamed Russia on people she saw as a threat to her.

I still don’t see how the leaked emails is a bad thing. If our government isn’t being transparent with us and lying then maybe more people should hack and expose them. Just like people smoke weed illegally because they thought the law is dumb or drink alcohol during prohabition. People do what they think is right. I see the emails the same way regardless of how illegally it is.

I think you want to bust Trump so bad that you are not seeing the net positive in this. If anything he could be doing a good thing. It’s only fair after the DNC illegally spied on Trump. If anything this is an F U from him to them. You spy on me then I’ll leak your stuff. First they need to link Trump with Russia though.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> We learned from he FISA Memo that the Obama Administration, The Inteligence Community, The FBI, The Department of Justice, and the Mainstream Media all colluded to get Hillary elected.


So your theory is that all of the most powerful entities in the country colluded to get Hillary elected, and she still lost?  This has to be the most nonsensical conspiracy theory I've heard yet.  

Edit: Comey committed a Hatch Act violation which undoubtedly helped Trump in the election, FFS.

Eventually you're just going to have to accept the fact that there's no chance of another investigation targeting Hillary and that Republicans were never able to find any evidence for the million things she was accused of.  I just find it hilarious how she remains some sort of boogeyman to Republicans who is simultaneously an evil genius that literally gets away with murder, and at the same time, the most incompetent person in the world.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Anyway, back to the investigation at hand: turns out that not only was Trump going to build a tower in Moscow, he planned to give away a $50 million penthouse in that tower to Putin.  Two sources confirm this so far:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ganization-planned-to-give-vladimir-putin-the

Seems Trump's codename in indictments and legal documents is 'Individual 1,' and he's getting a lot more mentions in these types of documents lately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...968994-f3f7-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html



			
				WaPo said:
			
		

> In two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
> 
> New evidence from two separate fronts of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation casts fresh doubts on Trump’s version of key events involving Russia, signaling potential political and legal peril for the president. Investigators have now publicly cast Trump as a central figure of their probe into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.
> 
> Together, the documents show investigators have evidence that Trump was in close contact with his lieutenants as they made outreach to both Russia and WikiLeaks — and that they tried to conceal the extent of their activities.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> he planned to give away a $50 million penthouse in that tower to Putin.


But the sources don't say that at all.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> But the sources don't say that at all.


Sorry, not the man, but his company.  I guess that somehow makes it better?



			
				Buzzfeed said:
			
		

> President Donald Trump’s company planned to give a $50 million penthouse at Trump Tower Moscow to Russian President Vladimir Putin as the company negotiated the luxury real estate development during the 2016 campaign, according to four people, one of them the originator of the plan.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Wikileaks doesn't publish anything on Trump


Trump is not the type of politician who even needs leaks to happen, if you want evidence then you just have to pay close attention and what may or may not be said subtly.

Same applies to other politicians, tbh.

Trump supporters believe in what he says rather than what he will actually do.

Trusting a politician/political party is a mistake many do and assume they're on the "correct" party.

For example, I'm in favor of Britain's Brexit but not for a second do I trust their "Conservative" party.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Trump is not the type of politician who even needs leaks to happen, if you want evidence then you just have to pay close attention and what may or may not be said subtly.
> 
> Same applies to other politicians, tbh.


So Wikileaks doesn't need to exist?  Their purpose was supposed to be giving transparency to governments that lacked it, but if they simply pick and choose which administrations to leak info on, then they're useless.  Just another organization full of partisan hacks who want to deliver, at most, half of the story.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Trump supporters believe in what he says rather than what he will actually do.


Oh I'm very aware, but supporters aren't your target audience for leaks.  It's everybody else who knows how to think rationally.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Trusting a politician/political party is a mistake many do and assume they're on the "correct" party.
> 
> For example, I'm in favor of Britain's Brexit but not for a second do I trust their "Conservative" party.


That's reasonable, no trust without verification.  That same standard needs to apply to everyone, though, not exclude individuals who lie with every word.  In fact we probably need greater scrutiny for those individuals, because otherwise we'll never get to the truth buried under all those lies.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Sorry, not the man, but his company. I guess that somehow makes it better?


Well it's very disingenuous to say "his company", when it was only one man (Michael Cohen) who was spitballing the idea.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Well it's very disingenuous to say "his company", when it was only one man (Michael Cohen) who was spitballing the idea.


C'mon dude, he was Trump's lawyer.  He didn't make any moves without Trump asking him to or at least knowing about it.



			
				Buzzfeed said:
			
		

> Cohen acknowledged in court that he had lied to Congress about the plan in order to protect Trump and his presidential campaign.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 30, 2018)

I like how buzzfeed is being used as a trusted source here.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> C'mon dude, he was Trump's lawyer.  He didn't make any moves without Trump asking him to or at least knowing about it.



They were Cohen had the idea to give one apartment to Putin, so that the rest of the rich people there would cream themselves thinking they could live like Putin and buy the apartments there, leading to a net profit. The headline is bullshit, you can even look in the article itself. Felix Sater came up with the idea, Cohen said it was a good idea. You can either see this two ways. If you believe in the conspiracy theory that Trump and Putin are linked politically, then this looks odd, but if you realize that The Trump Organization is a for-profit business, this isn't weird at all.

Anyways we'll see, but trying to sell real estate isn't a crime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joe88 said:


> I like how buzzfeed is being used as a trusted source here.


I know, I'm humoring him at this point, but I wouldn't trust Buzzfeed to tell me the time of day


----------



## spotanjo3 (Nov 30, 2018)

UGH! Politicial is always a drama. Political corruption. Dont trust them all. They all are the corrupted!


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> They were Cohen had the idea to give one apartment to Putin, so that the rest of the rich people there would cream themselves thinking they could live like Putin and buy the apartments there, leading to a net profit. The headline is bullshit, you can even look in the article itself. Felix Sater came up with the idea, Cohen said it was a good idea. You can either see this two ways. If you believe in the conspiracy theory that Trump and Putin are linked politically, then this looks odd, but if you realize that The Trump Organization is a for-profit business, this isn't weird at all.
> 
> Anyways we'll see, but trying to sell real estate isn't a crime.


The crime isn't necessarily that the building was being planned, but that all of this was being planned during the campaign AND everybody lied about it.  Cohen literally implicated Trump as part of all this, and he was the one who clarified Trump to be 'Individual 1' in legal documents.



Joe88 said:


> I like how buzzfeed is being used as a trusted source here.


The source isn't Buzzfeed, it's just their article.  Here are several more outlets with articles about the same thing:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...on-vladimir-putin-penthouse-suite/2156031002/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...giving-putin-50-million-penthouse-broker-says

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...ion-planned-to-give-putin-penthouse-in-moscow

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/30/trump-organization-planned-giving-putin-50-million/

It's been a take-your-pick type of week, so feel free to ask if you want more articles on any of the stories posted in this thread.  The sources are solid because they're pretty much all federal investigators and/or Trump's personal lawyer.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 30, 2018)

All of them list buzzfeed as the source of this news.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> You should check those sources because all of them list buzzfeed as the source.


They don't list Buzzfeed as the source, only credit their report as the first.  Not even Buzzfeed lists themselves as the source.  Everybody always wants to credit the first place to report on something.

It's literally a little further up on this same page, but:



			
				Buzzfeed said:
			
		

> President Donald Trump’s company planned to give a $50 million penthouse at Trump Tower Moscow to Russian President Vladimir Putin as the company negotiated the luxury real estate development during the 2016 campaign, *according to four people, one of them the originator of the plan.*


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 30, 2018)

Buzzfeed was the one who ran that news story first, they claim the unnamed sources told them "X"
Then every other news organization used buzzfeed as the source because they are the only source


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Buzzfeed was the one who ran that news story first, they claim the unnamed sources told them "X"
> Then every other news organization used buzzfeed as the source because they are the only source


Two unnamed law enforcement officers, Michael Cohen who is now under threat of perjury and plea deals being dropped, and Felix Sater, the architect of the plan.  Sources don't get any more primary than that.


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 30, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Buzzfeed was the one who ran that news story first, they claim the unnamed sources told them "X"
> Then every other news organization used buzzfeed as the source because they are the only source


The evidence they’ve (Buzzfeed) presented are screenshots of texts between Cohen and Felix Sater. Are you suggesting these allegations are disregarded? What is the end game to your stance and why?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Buzzfeed said:
> 
> 
> 
> > President Donald Trump’s company planned to give a $50 million penthouse at Trump Tower Moscow to Russian President Vladimir Putin as the company negotiated the luxury real estate development during the 2016 campaign, according to four people, one of them the originator of the plan.





> ....Lightly looked at doing a building somewhere in Russia. Put up zero money, zero guarantees and didn’t do the project. Witch Hunt!


So um..., confirmed?


----------



## MFDC12 (Dec 2, 2018)

I don't want to quote snipe but RE: Buzzfeed [News]

I just sort of want to point out Buzzfeed News is a legit news source/has actually good journalism and pretty much separate from the listicle/quiz site. One of the journalists was actually a finalist for a pulitzer.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 2, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> So um..., confirmed?


Lol yeah, whenever you need anything confirmed in relation to Trump just wait a couple days for him to tweet about it.  Since he thinks "everybody knew about it" is a valid legal defense instead of just a lie on top of a lie.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2018)

As of three hours ago: Mueller is recommending no jail time for Flynn, as his cooperation with the investigation has been "substantial."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mue...ation-trump-adviser-michael/story?id=59597161

Meanwhile, two attorneys general are subpoenaing records from the Trump Organization and the IRS.  This is in relation to the emoluments lawsuit.  Two judges have already struck down Trump's claim of immunity.

https://apnews.com/8335d630f04248fe...AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter


----------



## Attacker3 (Dec 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Meanwhile, two attorneys general are subpoenaing records from the Trump Organization and the IRS.


This entire thing is based on a foreign government worker staying at his hotel, which they're trying to spin as an emolument.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

A subpoena is fine, but it's not really going to turn up anything other than "ambassador A stayed 2 nights and paid some money for his stay"


----------



## Xzi (Dec 7, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> This entire thing is based on a foreign government worker staying at his hotel, which they're trying to spin as an emolument.
> 
> A subpoena is fine, but it's not really going to turn up anything other than "ambassador A stayed 2 nights and paid some money for his stay"


A Saudi government official buying out 50 rooms right after the election, only one of which was used, is a blatantly obvious violation of the emoluments clause.  It's far from the only violation though.  Since Trump didn't remove himself from his businesses when elected, he's been in violation of the emoluments clause from day one of his presidency and every day since.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 7, 2018)

Four years of prison time is being recommended for Michael Cohen, as prosecutors dug up additional contacts with Russians that Cohen had not disclosed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/nyregion/michael-cohen-sentence.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

More information about Manafort's crimes and lies was released today, and it seems to suggest Trump had prior knowledge about the Trump Tower meeting.  In which case Mueller definitely has the evidence to prove that:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/mueller-manafort-filing-lies


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2018)

Russian agent Maria Butina has reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors that includes cooperation:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mar...ian-agent-reaches-plea-deal/story?id=59719083

Butina is said to have worked closely with the NRA, and it's theorized that Russian dark money may have been funneled through the NRA to the Trump campaign.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2018)

Update to the above, Butina is indeed set to plead guilty to conspiring to act as an agent of the Kremlin:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dfd0e0dd65a_story.html?utm_term=.3a506b3664cc

In private communications her boyfriend claimed that he set up a Trump-Russia NRA conduit for campaign funds:

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/12/ma...-russia-nra-conduit-as-campaign-funds-flowed/



			
				Salon said:
			
		

> Admitted Russian spy Maria Butina’s Republican operative boyfriend wrote in private communications that he was involved in setting up a “very private line of communication” between Russia and the Trump campaign using the National Rifle Association as a “conduit.”
> 
> Butina, a 30-year-old Russian gun rights activist, worked for years to cultivate relationships within Republican and NRA circles. She was charged with working as an agent of the Russian government earlier this year and on Monday agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy charges and cooperate with prosecutors.


----------



## supermist (Dec 12, 2018)

Cohen sentenced to 3 years
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/6760...in-prison-following-plea-that-implicated-trum


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

CNN has obtained the letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow, signed by Trump himself:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/poli...ter-of-intent-rudy-giuliani-moscow/index.html

Giuliani was claiming as recently as Sunday that the letter was not signed.


Mike Flynn may not avoid jail time after all despite prosecutors singing his praises for cooperation.  Judge Sullivan dug into Flynn during his initial sentencing hearing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ce1bb4-0247-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html



			
				WaPo said:
			
		

> “Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for,” the judge said. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”
> 
> “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense,” Sullivan said.
> 
> “I cannot assure you, if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration,” Sullivan said.


Sentencing was delayed after this initial hearing and will be coming later.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 19, 2018)

It has actually gotten so bad, that the word treason is being thrown around.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> It has actually gotten so bad, that the word treason is being thrown around.


It is getting really bad, and always more and more blatant.  Two more stories from today, and all you need is the titles to highlight the absurdity here:

'Lifting Russian Sanctions Key to Trump Deal Exposed by Cohen'

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...d-by-cohen-1385505347911?cid=eml_mra_20181201

'Trump admin to lift sanctions on firms owned by Russian oligarch Deripaska'

https://thehill.com/regulation/nati...-sanctions-on-firms-owned-by-russian-oligarch


----------



## Xzi (Dec 21, 2018)

Had to debate whether or not to make another thread for this, but Trump has suddenly and unexpectedly decided to withdraw all US troops from Syria:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/i...syria-victory-iran-russia-experts-say-n950111

While also withdrawing half of our troops from Afghanistan:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/afghanistan-troop-withdrawal.html

It seems pretty clear that Russia and Iran are set to benefit most of all from these withdrawals.  General Mattis was advising against troop withdrawal from Syria previously, and these rash decisions were the tipping point for him.  He announced his resignation yesterday in a letter with some clear rebukes to Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/jim-mattis-defense-secretary-trump.html

Many viewed Mattis as the last 'adult in the room' for the Trump administration, so things could potentially get a lot worse with nothing but psychos and sycophants surrounding the president.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 9, 2019)

*Big* update today, prosecutors say that Manafort shared campaign polling data with a Russian associate possibly tied to Russian intelligence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html

They used this data to target subgroups and individuals online.  This essentially confirms that Mueller has evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> *Big* update today, prosecutors say that Manafort shared campaign polling data with a Russian associate possibly tied to Russian intelligence:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html
> 
> They used this data to target subgroups and individuals online.  This essentially confirms that Mueller has evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


Wow...that's certainly a scoop. 

To be honest: thus far I was only partially on the fence on the whole collusion thing. I mean...if I had known that people would actually VOTE for Trump, I'd try to influence people into a different opinion as well. I really can't see why others - yes, even Russian ones - aren't given the same liberty. I mean...It's not Russia's fault that others believe random guys on the internet.

But this shows that even this part is rigged. If those Russian intelligence companies were given poll results - which I can't but assume is their prime motivation for trusting or distrusting someone - then that's a pretty strong factor. But it's rather hard to believe. I mean...let's say that poll results show which people are very much pro abortion (or anti. whatever...it's an example here). Does this mean that by Manafort sharing this with associates who are active on social media, they can make these groups believe that Clinton is AGAINST abortion ?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> But this shows that even this part is rigged. If those Russian intelligence companies were given poll results - which I can't but assume is their prime motivation for trusting or distrusting someone - then that's a pretty strong factor. But it's rather hard to believe. I mean...let's say that poll results show which people are very much pro abortion (or anti. whatever...it's an example here). Does this mean that by Manafort sharing this with associates who are active on social media, they can make these groups believe that Clinton is AGAINST abortion ?


Indeed, Russia was able to target exactly the voters they needed to with exactly the messages they needed to via social media and other online advertisement.

Additionally this story broke yesterday, the FBI was investigating whether Trump was secretly working for Russia well prior to Comey's firing and the start of the Mueller investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html


----------



## Xzi (Jan 16, 2019)

Mueller has requested a delay in the sentencing of Rick Gates, Manafort associate, because he is still cooperating in several investigations:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/15/mueller-seeks-delay-for-ex-trump-official-rick-gates-sentencing-says-he-is-cooperating-in-several-investigations.html?__source=twitter|main

Additionally Mueller's team has released fillings that detail how Manafort broke his plea agreement:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...s-filing-on-why-manafort-broke-plea-agreement

Nearly two hundred pages of evidence/exhibits, though much is redacted.  Highlights include a GRU officer known to both Manafort and Gates who helped funnel money from Russia to the Trump inauguration, and then from there to the Trump businesses.  Likely the same Russian intelligence officer who was given Trump campaign polling data.

Lastly, Mueller has issued subpoenas for three associates of Jerome Corsi, former DC Bureau Chief for Infowars and Roger Stone associate:

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-c...es-conservative-commentator/story?id=60391636


----------



## Xzi (Jan 17, 2019)

Michael Cohen says he was instructed by Trump to rig CNBC and Drudge Report polls in Trump's favor:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/mic...-to-rig-online-polls-at-trumps-direction.html

Rudy Giuliani did a 180 and now essentially admits the Trump administration colluded with Russia:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...s-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-n959681


----------



## Xzi (Jan 18, 2019)

@chrisrlink already made a new thread on this, but for the purposes of record keeping, I'll be posting it here too.

Donald Trump reportedly directed Michael Cohen to lie to congress:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ssia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

Obviously this is a fairly serious crime, so much so that the act of directing another person to lie for the president became the first article of impeachment against Nixon.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 25, 2019)

The investigation has been somewhat quiet lately with the shutdown continuing for over a month now.  The latest is that Mueller seems to be probing Trump campaign connections to the NRA:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-mueller-trump-nra-russia-20190122-story.html

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/24/robert-muellers-probe-extends-to-nra/

As has been reported before, Maria Butina, who plead guilty to acting as an agent of the Russian government and had a lot of close NRA ties, is now cooperating with prosecutors on several investigations.  The NRA seems a likely avenue for Russia to have funneled money to the Trump campaign as well.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 25, 2019)

Holy shit, we're breaking into the top dogs now.  Roger Stone, Trump's bestie and advisor, has been arrested in connection to the Mueller probe:

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-associ...s-obstruction-charge-113041826--politics.html

I honestly expected a couple more dominoes to fall before Stone, but obviously Mueller has enough evidence to move on the rat fuck right now.  Stone is facing seven charges, including obstruction of justice and witness tampering.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Here's an interesting one, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders interviewed with the special counsel's office today:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/sarah-sanders-robert-mueller/index.html

Just about every word out of her mouth is typically a lie, but we'll see if her loyalty to Trump holds up behind closed doors and under threat of perjury.

Edit: a judge also issued a gag order on Roger Stone and his attorneys today.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/roger-stone-gag-order/


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2019)

Mueller went into detail today about Roger Stone's connections to Wikileaks and the DNC hack:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ail-about-roger-stone-connection-to-dnc-hack/

It's looking highly likely that these activities, as well as Manafort's communications and information exchange with Russian operatives, are all going to tie back to Trump as the shot-caller.  Mueller can later pile on additional conspiracy and collusion charges to everybody involved, after indicting the lot of them individually.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 16, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> https://nypost.com/2018/11/28/trump-says-pardon-for-paul-manafort-still-a-possibility/


a pardon would just zero in on trump even more it wouldn't be a smart move by a not so smart president


----------



## Xzi (Feb 20, 2019)

CNN is reporting that the Mueller report may be ready to go as early as next week:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/politics/special-counsel-conclusion-announcement/index.html

Though I'm not sure how trustworthy CNN is any more, so take this with a grain of salt.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2019)

Roger Stone has received a full gag order, after deciding it would be a good idea to post a picture of the judge presiding over his case with crosshairs next to her head on Instagram:

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/21/roger-stone-gag-order-1179548

One more peep out of him and this moron is definitely going to jail until the trial.  I'd bet he can't help himself.


There's also more reporting today that the Mueller investigation is likely to wrap up next week.  This doesn't mean the prosecutorial phase is over, however, as there are still a lot of sealed indictments.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Roger Stone has received a full gag order, after deciding it would be a good idea to post a picture of the judge presiding over his case with crosshairs next to her head on Instagram:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/02/21/roger-stone-gag-order-1179548
> 
> ...




Actually what I read at another gaming board is that the gag order applies to the attorneys, not to Stone himself, except he can't make statements on Courthouse property.

The picture is something he pulled off google, cropped and posted. Someone over at the other board I was reading had the original photo. It was a tactless move but I think it's a stretch to assume he meant it to be crosshairs next to her head. He didn't make the photo.

That said, Roger Stone gives me the heebie-jeebies just looking at him.


*EDIT*: nvm, I see now the gag order was 'enhanced' after he did this. Considering it was _her_ photo he posted, not too surprising the judge would react this way. Don't blame her.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Actually what I read at another gaming board is that the gag order applies to the attorneys, not to Stone himself, except he can't make statements on Courthouse property.


That was the previous gag order, which was less strict.  Now he's not to be mentioning anything about his case or his judge under threat of automatic jail time.  Stone's all about the attention, though, much like Trump, so as I said I don't expect he'll be able to help himself.



Hanafuda said:


> The picture is something he pulled off google, cropped and posted. Someone over at the other board I was reading had the original photo. It was a tactless move but I think it's a stretch to assume he meant it to be crosshairs next to her head. He didn't make the photo.


A pretty grave mistake to make while facing seven other serious charges already, if it was indeed a mistake.



Hanafuda said:


> That said, Roger Stone gives me the heebie-jeebies just looking at him.


Roger's a cokehead, you can see the telltale signs in just about any video footage of him.  Always doing that weird baring-his-teeth thing.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 23, 2019)

Less than an hour ago Mueller filed a sentencing memo for Paul Manafort:

https://www.apnews.com/73ea05874b14439996546df7c8eebc03

I don't have all the highlights of the memo yet, as it did just come out an hour ago and it is over 800 pages, much of it redacted.  Manafort is facing 17 to 22 years, likely life in jail at his age.


Yesterday we also had news that Cohen is giving investigators new info on Trump's business dealings:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/michael-cohen-prosecutors-trump-organization.html

Cohen is scheduled to testify in an open hearing before Congress this coming Wednesday.  Prepare your popcorn.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 27, 2019)

The text of Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress, coming up later today, has been released early.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001

It's twenty pages and *very* juicy, so I highly recommend you read the whole thing, but here are the highlights:


Donald Trump communicated with Roger Stone directly about his coordination with Wikileaks.  Trump was personally aware in advance of the DNC hack.  Roger Stone's indictment specifically notes that on the day of the Access Hollywood release, and subsequent WikiLeaks Dump, an _“associate of the high-ranking Trump Campaign official sent a text message to STONE that read ‘well done.’"_

Trump wrote and signed a _personal check_ (which Cohen is providing to Congress) to pay the hush money that constituted a felony campaign finance violation for which Michael Cohen is now going to prison.

Trump made it clear Cohen was expected to lie about Trump Tower Moscow, and his lawyers edited the statement which lied about the timing. Michael Cohen has also pled guilty to that. This would appear to the basis of the Buzzfeed Story that SCO famously shot down without being specific about what it got wrong.

Cohen is bringing financial statements from Deutsche Bank (Trump's foreign lender) dating back 2011 - 2013.  He's also bringing, and I quote, "copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores."

All in all we're probably looking at the sitting president being implicated in a solid three to four felonies here.  And Cohen is bringing hard evidence to back most of it.  Shit just got super real.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 27, 2019)

Okay...that is indeed one heck of a report.


_Copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores._

Just when you thought there could fall more skeletons out of the (clown car type of) closet, this happens. What the hell is this even about? We all know W. Bush was at best an average student...it didn't stop him from being...erm...okay, absolutely not my kind of president, but it was not like many took offense on his grades. So why threaten this in the first place? 

_Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates. In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell 5 me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie._

Phew...that sort of thing sure is going to spark some controversies. 

_You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it._

Erm...I can certainly understand "reviewed"...but EDITED??? 


And last but in no means least:

_To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. *He lied about it because he never expected to win the election*. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project_

I hate to bash the conspiracies against Trump here, but this would seem like (as far as Cohen knows) Trump is indeed innocent to COLLUSION. Yes, he had a hundreds of millions deal with Russia on the line on which he lied, but it wasn't a deal in which things like "the assistance of Russian social engineers" or "hacking the ballots" where part of the deal.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 27, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...that is indeed one heck of a report.
> 
> 
> _Copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores._
> ...


I might have believed the no collusion part, had he not met with Putin privately multiple times in spontaneous, unorthodox fashion. Hopefully his translators were subpoenaed.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 27, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I might have believed the no collusion part, had he not met with Putin privately multiple times in spontaneous, unorthodox fashion. Hopefully his translators were subpoenaed.


I don't see it confirmed in the text, but I've heard that Putin got a condo in that project as part of the deal. Those meetings could just be about that.

Then again... Maybe Trump was dumb enough to think that he could land such a project and be president on the side without the two interfering with each other, but that Helsinki show where Trump played lip service to Putin probably set him straight  Trump probably acted that way because Putin had proof of these scandals as well.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 27, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I hate to bash the conspiracies against Trump here, but this would seem like (as far as Cohen knows) Trump is indeed innocent to COLLUSION. Yes, he had a hundreds of millions deal with Russia on the line on which he lied, but it wasn't a deal in which things like "the assistance of Russian social engineers" or "hacking the ballots" where part of the deal.


Did you miss the part where Trump was communicating with Stone directly about his connections to Wikileaks and the DNC hack?  That definitely constitutes either collusion or conspiracy.  I have a feeling more of those types of charges will be piled on to several individuals involved as Mueller is wrapping up.  If Mueller can also connect Trump to Manafort's giveaway of US voter/polling data to the GRU, then that's potentially another count of collusion or conspiracy.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Did you miss the part where Trump was communicating with Stone directly about his connections to Wikileaks and the DNC hack?  That definitely constitutes either collusion or conspiracy.  I have a feeling more of those types of charges will be piled on to several individuals involved as Mueller is wrapping up.  If Mueller can also connect Trump to Manafort's giveaway of US voter/polling data to the GRU, then that's potentially another count of collusion or conspiracy.


As much as I hoped different...yes, I missed that part. You're probably referring to this part:

_A lot of people have asked me about whether Mr. Trump knew about the release of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of time. The answer is yes. 10 As I earlier stated, Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks drop of emails. In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of “wouldn’t that be great.”_

This honestly doesn't indicate to me that Trump ordered the hack, or even that it were Russians to begin with (let alone working for the Russian state). Rather the contrary: that response is more of someone reeking an opportunity rather than someone plotting against his opponent (and hearing that it's going his way). Sure, it's very unethical to use this sort of mud throwing in the election, but it's not like the US election were ever shiny beacons of ethics. It probably breaks yet another rule of participation in the presidential race, but I honestly don't know what any candidate should have been doing in this situation.

Sorry, but to me, collusion and conspiracy both mean that he had to actively pursuit these sorts of things, rather than use them when they came his way. That's of course still possible, but I guess this depends on what part Stone really played.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> It probably breaks yet another rule of participation in the presidential race, but I honestly don't know what any candidate should have been doing in this situation.


Yes, accepting gifts or assistance from foreign entities during an election is against the law, regardless of whether Trump actively pursued that assistance or it just happened to "come to him."



Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but to me, collusion and conspiracy both mean that he had to actively pursuit these sorts of things, rather than use them when they came his way. That's of course still possible, but I guess this depends on what part Stone really played.


I don't think 'active pursuit' is required to meet the legal definition for either collusion or conspiracy, but I might be wrong.  Mueller might be preparing an entirely different charge for the Trump-Stone-Wikileaks debacle.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, accepting gifts or assistance from foreign entities during an election is against the law, regardless of whether Trump actively pursued that assistance or it just happened to "come to him."


Okay. I honestly didn't know that. Thanks for the information. 

...okay, I've got a semi-unrelated question, then: does this mean that I can't put in a (small monetary) donation for Sanders' campaign because this would mean that "Belgium is colluding with the 2020 presidential campaign" ?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay. I honestly didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
> 
> ...okay, I've got a semi-unrelated question, then: does this mean that I can't put in a (small monetary) donation for Sanders' campaign because this would mean that "Belgium is colluding with the 2020 presidential campaign" ?


Correct, donors are required to have a US address, no matter how small the donation.  PACs (political action committees) work differently, however, and allow corporations and large donors to more easily conceal their identities.  This is a result of the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling, and it has caused the amount of money involved in our elections to skyrocket.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 1, 2019)

Largely lost in Cohen's testimony were ties to both Trump Jr and Ivanka for the hush money payments and the Trump Tower Moscow deal that eventually fell through (after Trump became president).  Well, guess who's being called to testify in front of Congress next:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/house-oversight-trump-cohen-testimony-1196594

Also today, we have reporting that Trump ordered officials to give Jared Kushner a security clearance against the wishes of his own chief of staff and the CIA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html



			
				NYTimes said:
			
		

> Mr. Trump’s decision in May so troubled senior administration officials that at least one, the White House chief of staff at the time, John F. Kelly, wrote a contemporaneous internal memo about how he had been “ordered” to give Mr. Kushner the top-secret clearance.
> 
> The White House counsel at the time, Donald F. McGahn II, also wrote an internal memo outlining the concerns that had been raised about Mr. Kushner — including by the C.I.A. — and how Mr. McGahn had recommended that he not be given a top-secret clearance.
> 
> ...


This guy seems to have a real hard-on for nepotism.

Lastly, of note is that two other individuals may be charged/jailed over Cohen's testimony: Matt Gaetz and Roger Stone.  Gaetz seemingly threatened Cohen on Twitter prior to the testimony, and Stone commented on the testimony, though I'm not 100% sure the judge will consider it a violation of his gag order.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-matt-gaetz-cohen-investigation-20190227-story.html

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...hens-testimony-and-may-be-jailed-as-a-result/


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c76d5a-f18d-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html
> 
> Seems like associates of Trump have a very hard time sticking to the truth on any given subject, although that's probably not a shocker to anybody.  This story broke yesterday and Trump is of course rage tweeting about it today.  It also broke today that Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange months before e-mails hacked by Russia were published.  Another piece of the puzzle fits into place:
> 
> ...



NOT 1 lick of evidence or proof of Trump colluding with Russia (Which is not even a crime).
The Emails were not hacked, they were stolen by Seth Rich which was a dem insider that was killed over this.  And don't try to act like it was a botched robbery, he still had his wallet including cash and cards, jewelry...  What kinda robber doesn't take anything but a life?
Hillary and the dems paid for the Russian dirty dossier which has no credibility whatsoever.  
Anybody who believes otherwise is dillusional and needs to seek professional help immediatly!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 1, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> NOT 1 lick of evidence or proof of Trump colluding with Russia (Which is not even a crime).
> The Emails were not hacked, they were stolen by Seth Rich which was a dem insider that was killed over this.  And don't try to act like it was a botched robbery, he still had his wallet including cash and cards, jewelry...  What kinda robber doesn't take anything but a life?
> Hillary and the dems paid for the Russian dirty dossier which has no credibility whatsoever.
> Anybody who believes otherwise is dillusional and needs to seek professional help immediatly!


You can believe whatever fantasy nonsense you want, but please don't fill this thread with dribble.  You obviously haven't been following along, and I'm using it to post the facts of the investigation(s), wherever they may lead.  I don't really care if that happens to trigger you.


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You can believe whatever fantasy nonsense you want, but please don't fill this thread with dribble.  You obviously haven't been following along, and I'm using it to post the facts of the investigation(s), wherever they may lead.  I don't really care if that happens to trigger you.


Yeah keep trying to supress truth just because you are too closed minded to understand.  I do not dribble, I present common sense truthful evidential facts, which by the way the left knows nothing about.
I have just as much of a right as anybody else to state my facts on this thread considering it is in the public domain.  So that will not stop me.  I bet you are one of those people who believe Illegal is not Illegal, huh?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 1, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Yeah keep trying to supress truth just because you are too closed minded to understand.


Oh I understand perfectly, you believe the "truth" comes from 4Chan rather than the Associated Press and BBC.  Like I said, I just don't want to hear it here, keep it to yourself unless you're going to start a real discussion on one of these stories rather than simply barfing out a bunch of propagandist nonsense.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> NOT 1 lick of evidence or proof of Trump colluding with Russia (Which is not even a crime).
> The Emails were not hacked, they were stolen by Seth Rich which was a dem insider that was killed over this.  And don't try to act like it was a botched robbery, he still had his wallet including cash and cards, jewelry...  What kinda robber doesn't take anything but a life?
> Hillary and the dems paid for the Russian dirty dossier which has no credibility whatsoever.
> Anybody who believes otherwise is dillusional and needs to seek professional help immediatly!


Interesting... 

... Okay, not really. You're not here to prove anyone wrong. You just ignore what's going on.


----------



## Glyptofane (Mar 1, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Just when you thought there could fall more skeletons out of the (clown car type of) closet, this happens. What the hell is this even about? We all know W. Bush was at best an average student...it didn't stop him from being...erm...okay, absolutely not my kind of president, but it was not like many took offense on his grades. So why threaten this in the first place?


Bush was not okay. Everyone hated him at the time. I'd still say he's worse than Trump as his admin is responsible for over 1 million deaths of brown people who had nothing to do with 9/11.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 1, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Bush was not okay. Everyone hated him at the time. I'd still say he's worse than Trump as his admin is responsible for over 1 million deaths of brown people who had nothing to do with 9/11.


In a lot of ways the Cheney administration was worse, yes.  Perhaps the worst part of it is that they were competent, so they were able to get evil shit done a lot quicker, like tricking most of the nation about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

Comparing everything line by line would take forever, but suffice it to say that Trump has been worse in some ways, as well.  GWB had empathy for immigrants and he actually proposed a path to citizenship during his time in office.  I also never felt like the GWB administration was running around inside the white house like chickens with their heads cut off.  Despite the two illegal and unnecessary wars, it still felt like they had shit under control at the very least.  Until the 2008 crash, anyway.

It's really kind of a moot point, though, history will remember them both as absolutely terrible presidents.  Out of all the people in the country they could've ran, the Republican party brought us GWB and DJT back-to-back.  Gods I really hope it doesn't get any worse, but it always can.  They might run 6ix9ine from jail, or Paris Hilton, or Kanye West next.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 8, 2019)

Paul Manafort has been sentenced to a mere 47 months of jail time by a sympathetic judge in VA federal court:

https://apnews.com/93a090258cc64d858ec4adc514adfc7f?

The judge said Manafort lived a "blameless" life beyond these charges and that the sentencing guidelines were "quite high" in this case.  Manafort appeared in court in a wheelchair and with a cane despite no known injury or illness.  Thankfully, he has a second sentencing coming up next week, in front a likely much-less sympathetic judge.  My understanding is that the charges are similar in the second sentencing, and that any sentence can be served concurrently, so he'll simply serve the greater of the two as a result.

In other news today, Michael Cohen is suing the Trump Organization for nearly $2 million in unpaid legal fees:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47488268


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Paul Manafort has been sentenced to a mere 47 months of jail time by a sympathetic judge in VA federal court


Are you fucking kidding me? People have served more years for weed. And what the fuck is this wheelchair shit? How far can you sink? Toss this traitor  in prison and throw away the key.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> and that any sentence can be served concurrently, so he'll simply serve the greater of the two as a result.


My understanding is it's up to the next sentencing judge whether or not he serves the sentences concurrently.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Paul Manafort has been sentenced to a mere 47 months of jail time




Probably eligible for parole/release in about 23 months, assuming credit for good time served. But yeah, this sentence is basically irrelevant now, and if you think about the judge today basically just voted 'present' knowing next week would be the sentencing that actually matters.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 8, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Probably eligible for parole/release in about 23 months, assuming credit for good time served. But yeah, this sentence is basically irrelevant now, and if you think about the judge today basically just voted 'present' knowing next week would be the sentencing that actually matters.


You're right, but a ruling like this still makes a mockery of the justice system.  Manafort committed fraud in the amount of tens of millions.  A person can potentially get more than four years in jail for stealing $100.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Manafort committed fraud in the amount of tens of millions. A person can potentially get more than four years in jail for stealing $100.



How does that saying go again?  Defraud a bank out of one hundred dollars, spend 20 years in jail.  Defraud a bank out of tens of millions of dollars, become the President's best friend.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Hmm...I really wonder what kind of precedent this sort of verdict is going to outline.

*somewhere in a near future near you*
Judge: you stand here accused of stealing 500 dollars. The penalty for that is 5 years in prison. How do you plead?
Suspect: I plead guilty. But I'd like to add that I stole 5 billion more than that!
Judge: ah, I see. That changes the situation a bit...
Suspect: indeed. More so: I told some foreigners how to do shit!
Judge: all right. Because these charges are added to your initial crime, you are now facing...erm...2 years in prison? 
Suspect: that's right! Our beloved country rewards those with large ambition, amirite?  *attempts to high five judge*
Judge: 




Xzi said:


> In other news today, Michael Cohen is suing the Trump Organization for nearly $2 million in unpaid legal fees:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47488268


This is a bit of a weird lawsuit. If not to say 'counterintuitive. I mean...look at this:

Cohen (last week): hereby, I expose this check, signed by mr. Trump himself, to be made over for mrs. Clifford.
Choeh (this week): I am suing the Trump organisation for not having paid me.

You'd think that anyone with half a brain can come up with a decent defense on the republican/Trump side of this based on this sort of stuff.
Sure...the fact that the republicans went with a "liar, liar, pants on fire" and "I have never heard of you before today" defense rather than an ACTUAL defense can be submitted as proof that the republican party combined doesn't possess half of a brain. But surely at some point someone will be able to connect a few dots here.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 8, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> This is a bit of a weird lawsuit. If not to say 'counterintuitive.



Not sure how it's counterintuitive.  Blood sucking lawyer charges millions to be fence on pay-off checks include separately actual checks for pay-off?  Yea, can't imagine that...  Seriously, though, Cohen sounds like he's been the fence for tons of dealings (he was Trump's lawyer for ~12 years), and if you add up all the pay-offs, bribe money, etc along with his actual legal fees, it's easy to imagine Trump is rather behind on the bills*.  This added to the point that Trump has a reputation** for stiffing people for services rendered, such that they'd need a lawyer--nice irony--to actually get the fully promised amount.

I imagine Cohen thought he'd be sufficiently protected--attorney-client privilege--, so the risk to him being charged with anything and then put in the situation of testifying (and being stiffed) was relatively minor.  Of course, I think Cohen knew he wouldn't get a pardon because then it'd be Nixon all over again, except Nixon at least was reasonably popular and actually got stuff done for ~4 years.  Trump giving Cohen a pardon would possibly be political suicide--look at how the Senate seems poised to turn against him on his emergency measure for the wall--and risks Trump himself not being pardoned for any crimes he may have committed.

I mean, for Trump getting 47 months in prison could be a death sentence.

* The fact that Trump was paying Cohen back in $35,000 cash installments instead of one lump sum for the pay-off and legal fees (plus merged with some other business to hide the details)?  I mean, for someone who is worth billions, that seems sort of crazy.

** Whether it's valid or not, Trump's reputation is to use his name and other people's money to build things and then once the work is done to stop paying because he's gotten the actual work he needed done.  Then if they sue, he can argue they went over budget, didn't follow the design well enough, etc and hence there's a valid legal reason for a dispute.  The point being, it's an intended "negotiating tactic" to get what he wants.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 8, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Cohen (last week): hereby, I expose this check, signed by mr. Trump himself, to be made over for mrs. Clifford.
> Choeh (this week): I am suing the Trump organisation for not having paid me.
> 
> You'd think that anyone with half a brain can come up with a decent defense on the republican/Trump side of this based on this sort of stuff.
> Sure...the fact that the republicans went with a "liar, liar, pants on fire" and "I have never heard of you before today" defense rather than an ACTUAL defense can be submitted as proof that the republican party combined doesn't possess half of a brain. But surely at some point someone will be able to connect a few dots here.


AFAIK these are unpaid legal fees that stacked up over Cohen's years of working for Trump, not a missed payment for any one single thing.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 13, 2019)

Manafort has received an additional 43 months jail time from his second sentencing, putting his total now at 7.5 years.  I'd be disappointed still, but thankfully NY prosecutors swooped in and indicted him on 16 more charges, just minutes after his federal sentence came down:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/pau...-ny-prosecutors-after-federal-sentencing.html

A pardon is useless against state charges, so they've eliminated the one play Trump might've had left up his sleeve.  We can only hope that with a third sentencing, this aging mobster goes away for life.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 13, 2019)

Aren't politicians the *greatest*??


----------

