Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

I’m with you on the last bit, as long as the china being broken is neither the law nor ethics. Plenty of entrepreneurial types achieve success without cutting legal and ethical corners.

Yes, bureaucrat would probably be a more appropriate word than politician to describe your point. Or maybe ‘institutionalist’.

But in Mueller ‘s case, you’d need to also call him a leader and a highly effective prosecutor. Lots of ‘bureaucrats ‘ just push paper, never achieve much. That’s not Mueller.

And to be further clear, Trump’s an enormous failure as an an entrepreneur or business man. Rather he’s a con man, a cheat. Daddy ‘s money, and tax fraud. When that ran out along with OPM, Russians, mob money etc. But a good ‘marketer’ yes, always appealing to the basest of desires, greed, jealousy, sexual excess.

I'll take being a 4 BILLION DOLLAR failure.

You people are way gone.

Like I said, daddy's money, tax fraud, and Russian mob money...but is it really $4B? I'm from Missouri, the 'show me state'...oh yeah, Trump refuses to do so...

Of course, he claimed it was $10B...

But then, how much OPM did he lose along the way?
How did his investors do?
How did his contractors do?

I get tired of hearing about contractors being stiffed. Any subcontractor that plays in that world knows they will be asked to take a haircut on about half of their jobs, no matter who the prime contractor or developer are. It just plays out that way.

Really???
I've never stiffed a contractor in any of my real estate projects.
I've a few times asked them to defend their bill when it was out of whack with expectations or actually poor work, and had discounts applied, but nothing like what Trump apparently did regularly on fully contracted bid work that was completed on time and on budget.

Not sure why you'd suggest that stiffing contractors is something to be expected. You been a developer who has stiffed your contractors?

Not a developer or a contractor. Intimately tied into the business and see all of the back and forth. GC firms are famous for needing a “little help “ on this job and promising to make it up on the next one.

That could well be true for GC's and their subs, who have long term, multi-project relationships. Work it out over multiple projects...maybe to some extent. But that's not the same as stiffing them altogether.

That's the Trump situation. He was a developer who stiffed architects, the guy providing the drapes, you name it, he stiffed them. They rarely said 'thank you, may have another sir'. Took what they could get, signed the NDA and walked away in regret. Trump's a con artist and a cheat. Eventually enough people wised up that he had to change his model.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I’m with you on the last bit, as long as the china being broken is neither the law nor ethics. Plenty of entrepreneurial types achieve success without cutting legal and ethical corners.

Yes, bureaucrat would probably be a more appropriate word than politician to describe your point. Or maybe ‘institutionalist’.

But in Mueller ‘s case, you’d need to also call him a leader and a highly effective prosecutor. Lots of ‘bureaucrats ‘ just push paper, never achieve much. That’s not Mueller.

And to be further clear, Trump’s an enormous failure as an an entrepreneur or business man. Rather he’s a con man, a cheat. Daddy ‘s money, and tax fraud. When that ran out along with OPM, Russians, mob money etc. But a good ‘marketer’ yes, always appealing to the basest of desires, greed, jealousy, sexual excess.

I'll take being a 4 BILLION DOLLAR failure.

You people are way gone.

Like I said, daddy's money, tax fraud, and Russian mob money...but is it really $4B? I'm from Missouri, the 'show me state'...oh yeah, Trump refuses to do so...

Of course, he claimed it was $10B...

But then, how much OPM did he lose along the way?
How did his investors do?
How did his contractors do?

I get tired of hearing about contractors being stiffed. Any subcontractor that plays in that world knows they will be asked to take a haircut on about half of their jobs, no matter who the prime contractor or developer are. It just plays out that way.

Really???
I've never stiffed a contractor in any of my real estate projects.
I've a few times asked them to defend their bill when it was out of whack with expectations or actually poor work, and had discounts applied, but nothing like what Trump apparently did regularly on fully contracted bid work that was completed on time and on budget.

Not sure why you'd suggest that stiffing contractors is something to be expected. You been a developer who has stiffed your contractors?

Not a developer or a contractor. Intimately tied into the business and see all of the back and forth. GC firms are famous for needing a “little help “ on this job and promising to make it up on the next one.

That could well be true for GC's and their subs, who have long term, multi-project relationships. Work it out over multiple projects...maybe to some extent. But that's not the same as stiffing them altogether.

That's the Trump situation. He was a developer who stiffed architects, the guy providing the drapes, you name it, he stiffed them. They rarely said 'thank you, may have another sir'. Took what they could get, signed the NDA and walked away in regret. Trump's a con artist and a cheat. Eventually enough people wised up that he had to change his model.

Trump also told these people he was fleecing that they could indicate that they worked on a Trump project when they bid on other jobs because working on a Trump project had value.....It was his way of making up for stiffing him.

[foreverlax]

Trump owes $470,417 to El Paso Tx for a campaign rally. Do business with this clown at your own risk.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tale-in ... d=63350337

[dislaxxic]

CARTER PAGE SHARED “IMMATERIAL NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION” WITH ROSNEFT WHILE “WORKING” FOR TRUMP

"Most Administrations would be furious that someone who had become a political liability would continue to represent himself as someone who spoke for the Administration. They might even be grateful that the FBI continued to keep its eye on that person, to prevent them from facing any liability for what Page might say in Russia.

Not so today’s Republican party. For them, Carter Page — someone Trump fired and then refused to consider employing — is MLK Jr."

..

[Farfromgeneva]

There’s also the consideration in stronger markets that a sub needs to keep with full capacity utilization of their labor, sort of like indirect finance where there’s too much demand for the supply, such that it’s not uncommon for subs to have to use their liquidity and working capital to be the bank from time to time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Paul Manafort's new home!

[dislaxxic]

DONALD TRUMP HAS A ROGER STONE PROBLEM

The DNC keeps raising the September hack — which was clearly a DNC target — and Stone keeps just blowing that allegation off.

As noted above: the Stone material in the Mueller Report is currently redacted. But it’s there, showing that Stone provided Trump non-public details ahead of time (which Michael Cohen has described under oath and Rick Gates apparently has also described) and also showing that Trump wanted the emails and his top aides — including Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Mike Flynn, and Steve Bannon — made sure he got them.

It is still a very high bar for the DNC to win this suit.

But Roger Stone is a very weak point in the Republican attempt to defeat it. And neither he nor the Trump campaign seem to want to address that fact head on.

..

[seacoaster]

Larry Tribe in the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 8ff6fea004

"Rightly or wrongly — I think rightly — much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan), and more than a third of the nation’s voters, disagree. They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.

That is my view, as well.

Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents. This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president — and would be wise to do so — if it appeared the Senate was dead-set against convicting him.

But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.

The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to bury them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)

The point would not be to take old-school, House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.

By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter. It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him. And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency."

It's time.

[dislaxxic]

Trump’s Biggest Defenders In Congress Actually Love Impeachment

The Freedom Caucus, a bloc of roughly three dozen conservative Republicans led by some of President Donald Trump’s closest allies in Congress, repeatedly sought to impeach officials in the Obama administration. They pushed to impeach attorney general Eric Holder in 2013. They wanted to impeach Environmental Protection Administration head Gina McCarthy in 2015. Last year, they even introduced articles of impeachment against deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

And instead of suffering backlash from party leaders or Republican voters, the most conservative wing of the GOP emerged from the 2016 election more powerful than ever, with the ear of the president and enough members to influence legislation.

..

[jhu72]

Larry Tribe in the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 8ff6fea004

"Rightly or wrongly — I think rightly — much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan), and more than a third of the nation’s voters, disagree. They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.

That is my view, as well.

Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents. This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president — and would be wise to do so — if it appeared the Senate was dead-set against convicting him.

But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.

The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to bury them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)

The point would not be to take old-school, House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.

By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter. It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him. And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency."

It's time.

Exactly. There are so many off ramps once you start an impeachment inquiry, it makes no sense for the democrats to try to predict the behavior of the Senate at the end. Lots of things can change, not the least of which is public opinion once Fox Nation begins to see the reality of the Mueller Report. Public education is the real aim of an impeachment inquiry in this case. These people are living behind the Iron Curtain - intentionally, of their own will. The inquiry whether called an impeachment inquiry or a criminal inquiry is akin to Radio Free Europe.

[dislaxxic]

HISTORY’S RHYME, PART 4: CONTEMPT THEN, CONTEMPT NOW

Nixon's impeachment process, looked at from a 2019 perspective...

..

[dislaxxic]

More ongoing activity...

On once and future Mueller grand juries: the texts obtained from Andrew Miller overlap with Roger Stone’s voter suppression

..

[dislaxxic]

Beryl Howell’s Whack-A-Mole Grand Juries

Howell, having read multiple secret filings that led her to believe this was about Russian interference in the US election, got really confused after reading Bill Barr’s 4-page memo declaring victory and then learning that something this big, that must, in some way, relate to Russian interference, is still pending.

Aside from being a testament to just how misleading Barr’s memo was, that such confusion was possible for someone privy to the details of the investigation should focus far more attention on the limited scope of Barr’s exonerations. They pertain just to Russian election interference (not, say, graft), and just conspiring with the Russian government (though, if it’s a Russian bank, the Mystery Appellant clearly counts as that). And even the election-related events continue only through the Transition, not afterwards.

The Mueller Investigation is over and Trump has declared victory, but it appears that what Mueller achieved was protecting significant aspects of it long enough to see them metastasize to new grand juries.

..

[dislaxxic]

Impeachment fever: The Freedom Caucus reaps what it has sown

"Far-right House members spent years trying to impeach Obama appointees. Suddenly they're concerned with civility."

That's so right: "As ye reap, so shall ye sow". These morons are about to discover what real oversight means...

..

[old salt]

The Steele Dossier -- deconstructed, in detail

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Steele Dossier -- deconstructed, in detail

You are obsessed with that Dossier

[youthathletics]

Obama is gonna get impeached before all this over.

[old salt]

The Steele Dossier -- deconstructed, in detail

You are obsessed with that Dossier

Not as much at the MSM was in constructing their Trump-Russia collusion narrative,
or the IC which accepted it as legit intel & used it to investigate & spy on innocent Americans,
or the HRC/DNC who paid for it,
or the TDS zombies who defended it for over a year, here & in LP forums.

Has there ever been such a monumental hoax,
or a more disruptive Russian disinformation ploy ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Steele Dossier -- deconstructed, in detail

You are obsessed with that Dossier

Not as much at the MSM was in constructing their Trump-Russia collusion narrative,
or the IC which accepted it as legit intel & used it to investigate & spy on innocent Americans,
or the HRC/DNC who paid for it,
or the TDS zombies who defended it for over a year, here & in LP forums.

Has there ever been such a monumental hoax,
or a more disruptive Russian disinformation ploy ?

They get paid to talk about it.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Steele Dossier -- deconstructed, in detail

You are obsessed with that Dossier

Not as much at the MSM was in constructing their Trump-Russia collusion narrative,
or the IC which accepted it as legit intel & used it to investigate & spy on innocent Americans,
or the HRC/DNC who paid for it,
or the TDS zombies who defended it for over a year, here & in LP forums.

Has there ever been such a monumental hoax,
or a more disruptive Russian disinformation ploy ?

Yup
Trump didn't have any business with Russians
Trump's cronies and campaign officials didn't meet with any Russians
It was a 300lb guy in his basement
It was not Russians hacking and bots and...to support the Trump candidacy, nope.
Trump never said "I love Wikileaks" and "Russia, if you're listening"
No back door secret communications
No lying about meetings with Russians
Trump always tells the truth!

They're all innocent!

HOAX!!!