Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

[Quipling]

Previous Thread

Recent Updates

• Samuel Patton, a GOP lobbyist, has pleaded guilty to a FARA violation and will be cooperating with federal prosecutors
• Bruce Ohr, of dossier fame, has been working to obtain information from Russian oligarchs since 2014.
• Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Org. CFO, has agreed to immunity in exchange for cooperating with federal prosecutors

Mod note from previous thread: Please post in here with regards to the subject at hand. Any general chat can go in the WR OT thread.

Just to be clear, going forward, these type of posts also count of derailing:
1. Talking about how the thread is derailed/ how mods should handle a situation (report and continue on topic discussions)
2. Joking about posters who are reply banned from the thread
3. Posts with only flaming that do not have any other information about the topic
4. A reply to any of the above

Stop doing these. This isn't some game of getting each other reply bans and infractions. Just stay on topic, report when needed. We have the WR OT for posts like the ones above but they have no place in a normal thread.

Major events so far:

• Manafort, Trump's campaign manager and transition committee member has been indicted arising from misconduct reaching into 2017 related to payments received through 2014 from the pro-russia faction of Ukraine's pre-war government. He has pleaded not guilty. The indictment has since been expanded by 13 claims. Manafort's bond has been revoked because of witness tampering. His countersuit has been dismissed, as has his claim that Mueller's appointment violated Article II. He has been convicted of 8 counts so far.
• Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, has pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, which he claims to have committed at Trump's direction to influence the election.
• Gates has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and conspiring (with Manafort) to commiting tax fraud, failing to register as a foreign agent, and lying to the FBI
• George Papadopolous pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators in 2017 about activities occuring 2016-17. Admits to meeting with various Russian officials regarding setting up meetings and "dirt" on Hillary while acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, something he previously denied.
• Mike Flynn, Trump's National Security Advisor, has also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI with respect to several meetings that he had with the Russian ambassador. Flynn was allegedly involved in other business involving Turkey, but has not yet been charged with respect to that behavior.
• 13 Russian indictment for activity starting in 2014 and continuing through 2017. A US citizen pleaded guilty for agreeing to help them. There is also a separate 12 count indictment targeting GRU officers
• An attorney linked to Manafort, Gates, and a Russian oligarch has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI
• Yohai, Manafort's former son-in-law has agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department
• Daniels's lawsuit has somehow, insanely, gotten linked up to the Mueller investigation thanks to alleged wrongdoing and influence-peddling by Michael Cohen. Who has pleaded guilty and offered to fully cooperate.
• Twelve Russian intelligence officers have been indicted for conspiracy against the United States and aggravated identity theft.

Previous thread
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/pecker-problems-mueller-investigation-thread-v-21.3816231/

 

[tonni]

 

[AndroidRage]

God is that real? I hope it's real. Lmao

 

[waiguoren]

How does perjury fall short of high crimes and misdemeanors?

Here is the simplest form of my argument for why the Republicans were wrong to impeach President Clinton:

The impeachment clause ("treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors") should be interpreted using a textualist "like things" approach---if I list "A, B, and other Xs" where X is vague but A and B are clearly part of a single category (serious crimes), then whatever X means, it should consist of serious criminal behavior at minimum. Perjury merely to conceal sexual acts (President Clinton) is not, in my view, a serious crime, so impeachment was unjustified.

 

[waiguoren]

Please do not confuse the word "proof" with the word "evidence". Cohen's guilty plea is evidence that Cohen committed crimes. An independent finding of guilt by a jury (better, multiple juries) of fellow citizens usually represents a higher evidentiary standard than a guilty plea under the cloud of a potential cooperation agreement.

I'll entertain continuing with you if you can cite some statistics or facts to back that up and show it is not just some bullshit thing you made up.

There is no reason I can see to say that someone denying their guilt in a trial and as they go to jail is more likely to be IN FACT guilty than someone who admits their crimes. Quite the opposite and as you cited above we have enough examples of CONVICTED people being vindicated later to suggest otherwise.

I appreciate your skepticism, though I think you could tone down the vitriol a bit.

Of course, there are no statistics that can prove your or my view on this matter. It is my perception, however, that 100% of those experienced in criminal law agree with me on this issue. For example, please consider these relevant excerpts from a famous Washington University Law Review Article, The Trial Judge's Satisfaction as to the Factual Basis of Guilty Pleas. I have underlined for you the particularly important sentences.


An estimated ninety per cent of criminal convictions in state and federal courts are based on guilty pleas. This single fact demonstrates the dominant role of the guilty plea process in the administration of criminal justice and emphasizes the importance of insuring the accuracy of such pleas. Defendants who plead not guilty and stand trial are protected by a multitude of safeguards designed to avoid conviction of the innocent. Modem procedures for accepting guilty pleas should also be designed to prevent the conviction of innocent defendants; however, the guilty plea process is characterized by less elaborate procedures which often ignore the issue of guilt or innocence.


...

One method of preventing false pleas is judicial inquiry into the facts supporting the charge. Professor Newman, in his definitive study of adjudication by plea of guilty, has observed that some trial judges do make a factual inquiry before finally accepting guilty pleas, although those who do so appear to be in the minority. Some procedures aimed primarily at accomplishing other goals indirectly result in such examinations; for example, a presentence investigation may turn up facts which cast doubt on the defendant's guilt. However, with few exceptions, judges at most need inquire only into the voluntariness of guilty pleas and assure themselves that the pleas were made with understanding of the possible consequences."

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tw/&httpsredir=1&article=3094&context=law_lawreview
--------------------

 

[waiguoren]

That is misleading. The House already passed articles of impeachment and Goldwater told Nixon that he had only 15 votes for acquittal in the Senate. Well, short of 33 needed to stay in office. So, Goldwater basically told Nixon you are fucked and there is no way of stopping this mess or any foreseeable way of you gaining enough support to stay in office. This was more serious than the pony show put on by republicians against Clinton, which had no chance of ever amounting to Clinton leaving office by resignation or removal. The impeachment process was well under way with Nixon and he resigned before its completion, likely to avoid criminal charges with a pardon from Ford. Nixon had impeachment procedings against him but it never completed for him to be impeached.

I agree with all the facts you listed. I believe President Nixon deserved impeachment and President Clinton was wrongfully impeached. What did I write that was misleading?

 

[waiguoren]

Of course it was purely intended to benefit the campaign, the affairs occurred almost a decade before the payoffs, and only became relevant because Trump was running for POTUS. The payoffs were in response to the Access Hollywood video and audio release, plain and simple, out of fear of more bad press before election day. Trump supporters can pretend that all of this was a chivalrous attempt to protect Melania's image of her husband as a family man, but it's not like Trump wasn't known in mainstream media as a serial adulterer for decades. Trump's lawyers can be pedants and try to find some way to obscure this legally, but let's be honest here please.

I haven't accused you of dishonesty. Please extend me the same courtesy.

After reading your comment: would it be fair for me to assume that under your standard, John Edwards was guilty of failure to report campaign contributions? The jury couldn't reach a verdict.

In the event of a trial, it would not be the defense's job to prove Trump's innocence. It would be the prosecutor's job to prove Trump guilty. To do so, you (since you're playing prosecutor) would have to present direct evidence that Trump made the payment for the sole purpose of benefitting his presidential campaign. That's an extremely high bar, and your best bet would be a biased jury.

That's the legal side. As for my personal opinion, I'm not sure. Do we know how far back the "catch and kill" arrangement with The National Enquirer went? If Trump had been making hush money payments to women long before he announced a presidential campaign, that would seem to hurt your case.

 

[waiguoren]

Jimmy Dore: Cohen & Manafort Guilt Not Related To Russia


What we've been saying since Day One of this investigation is that yes, of course Donald Trump and his minions are corrupt just like most people in D.C. and Wall Street. They're corrupt. If you put a special prosecutor on them, you're going to find normal corruption. But I don't understand how this validates the first public test of Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling, because none of this shit is about Russian meddling. None of it. This about bank fraud and tax fraud that happened before this guy ever worked for Trump.

I'm old enough to remember a special prosecutor being assigned to Bill Clinton to go investigate a land deal. Fast forward a couple of years and we're talking about, did he get a blowjob or not in the Oval Office? That's the same thing here. We're supposed to be investigating Russian meddling, we got a guy paying off a hooker, we got a guy committing tax fraud. There's already an IRS. Why didn't the IRS get him on tax fraud? Why didn't the FBI or whoever investigates bank fraud go after him for bank fraud? We already have agencies that are supposed to investigate this stuff. Why do we need a special prosecutor to investigate fucking tax fraud? We don't. We don't. And that's why they got rid of the special prosecutor [sic] because everybody in D.C. realized that this is what happens---if they put a special prosecutor on you, they're going to find a crime.

 

[Andy Capp]

Jimmy Dore: Cohen & Manafort Guilt Not Related To Russia


What we've been saying since Day One of this investigation is that yes, of course Donald Trump and his minions are corrupt just like most people in D.C. and Wall Street. They're corrupt. If you put a special prosecutor on them, you're going to find normal corruption. But I don't understand how this validates the first public test of Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling, because none of this shit is about Russian meddling. None of it. This about bank fraud and tax fraud that happened before this guy ever worked for Trump.

I'm old enough to remember a special prosecutor being assigned to Bill Clinton to go investigate a land deal. Fast forward a couple of years and we're talking about, did he get a blowjob or not in the Oval Office? That's the same thing here. We're supposed to be investigating Russian meddling, we got a guy paying off a hooker, we got a guy committing tax fraud. There's already an IRS. Why didn't the IRS get him on tax fraud? Why didn't the FBI or whoever investigates bank fraud go after him for bank fraud? We already have agencies that are supposed to investigate this stuff. Why do we need a special prosecutor to investigate fucking tax fraud? We don't. We don't. And that's why they got rid of the special prosecutor [sic] because everybody in D.C. realized that this is what happens---if they put a special prosecutor on you, they're going to find a crime.

It's not "the same thing here" , though, is it? This has been pointed out to you more than once yet you're still pushing the same narrative. Please get stuffed.

 

[waiguoren]

It's not "the same thing here" , though, is it?

I agree with you to an extent. Starr was given a limited purview and had to request additional authority multiple times. By contrast, Mueller's purview is effectively infinite.

However, Dore makes a good point as well. Mueller's primary objective was to find evidence of coordination between the Russian state and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 election. Nearly 16 months later, he hasn't offered anything of substance to the public showing such coordination. He and the SDNY are veering into extramarital affairs and financial crimes from many years ago.

 

[waiguoren]

 

[andnowweknow]

Jimmy Dore: Cohen & Manafort Guilt Not Related To Russia


What we've been saying since Day One of this investigation is that yes, of course Donald Trump and his minions are corrupt just like most people in D.C. and Wall Street. They're corrupt. If you put a special prosecutor on them, you're going to find normal corruption. But I don't understand how this validates the first public test of Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling, because none of this shit is about Russian meddling. None of it. This about bank fraud and tax fraud that happened before this guy ever worked for Trump.

I'm old enough to remember a special prosecutor being assigned to Bill Clinton to go investigate a land deal. Fast forward a couple of years and we're talking about, did he get a blowjob or not in the Oval Office? That's the same thing here. We're supposed to be investigating Russian meddling, we got a guy paying off a hooker, we got a guy committing tax fraud. There's already an IRS. Why didn't the IRS get him on tax fraud? Why didn't the FBI or whoever investigates bank fraud go after him for bank fraud? We already have agencies that are supposed to investigate this stuff. Why do we need a special prosecutor to investigate fucking tax fraud? We don't. We don't. And that's why they got rid of the special prosecutor [sic] because everybody in D.C. realized that this is what happens---if they put a special prosecutor on you, they're going to find a crime.

Trump has nobody to blame for the special counsel but himself. Don't fire James Comey because he won't go easy on Flynn and generally do Trump's bidding...no special counsel.

In other news, are there any other pro Trump guys in this thread besides @bobgeese and @waiguoren at this stage or has everyone else abandoned ship?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Trump has nobody to blame for the special counsel but himself. Don't fire James Comey because he won't go easy on Flynn and generally do Trump's bidding...no special counsel.

In other news, are there any other pro Trump guys in this thread besides @bobgeese and @waiguoren at this stage or has everyone else abandoned ship?

There really isnt any point to coming into the thread when you guys are salivating over whore hush money.

Is the Mueller investigation into Russia about illegal collusion between Russia and Trump or not? When are we going to see something or have you guys admit that you're pissing in the wind?

 

[waiguoren]

Noam Chomsky: [The media are] focused on what I believe to be marginalia. Take for example the huge issue of interference in our "pristine" elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? It's an issue of overwhelming concern in the media. In most of the world, it's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, even to the point that the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu goes directly to Congress without even informing the president and speaks to Congress with overwhelming applause to try to undermine the president's policies....and that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in foreign influence of our elections, there are places to look.

 

[Rational Poster]

Noam Chomsky: [The media are] focused on what I believe to be marginalia. Take for example the huge issue of interference in our "pristine" elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? It's an issue of overwhelming concern in the media. In most of the world, it's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, even to the point that the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu goes directly to Congress without even informing the president and speaks to Congress with overwhelming applause to try to undermine the president's policies....and that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in foreign influence of our elections, there are places to look.

This is a silly argument from Chomsky.

The Israelis are easily one of the top 3 most important military and intelligence allies that we have, and have been for many decades. A close relationship like this is obviously going to bring with it a certain level of influence, both ways. Netanyahu didn't break into Congress through the ceiling. He was invited by members of Congress. The Israelis are our friends. I would argue that every bit of Israeli influence in American politics, there is a tenfold American influence on Israeli politics. Additionally, there is a significant population of Americans with pro-Israeli interests. Americans want close ties with Israel and they're willing to spend the money for that influence in politics. Not just Jewish Americans either, many conservative Christians and other conservative interests groups have a very pro-Israel bias in their politics.

The Russian attempts at influence were entirely hostile, clandestine, and uninvited and were quite obviously an entirely different thing.

 

[waiguoren]

The Russian attempts at influence were entirely hostile, clandestine, and uninvited and were quite obviously an entirely different thing.

I agree totally with this, assuming Russia actually performed the hacking.

 

[Darkballs]

In the event of a trial, it would not be the defense's job to prove Trump's innocence. It would be the prosecutor's job to prove Trump guilty. To do so, you (since you're playing prosecutor) would have to present direct evidence that Trump made the payment for the sole purpose of benefitting his presidential campaign. That's an extremely high bar, and your best bet would be a biased jury.

This is what you get when you have a poster who has no legal experience within the US, and bases his entire understanding of US criminal procedure on right wing shit blogs. The legal standard you have just posted is bullshit. They do not need "direct evidence" (circumstantial is fine and overwhelming here, regardless of whether you admit it or not; and 12 other people may not be as stupid/partisan), nor is the standard any different from any other criminal count.

And to suggest that your best bet is a biased jury, is just pure dipshit speculation.

After reading your comment: would it be fair for me to assume that under your standard, John Edwards was guilty of failure to report campaign contributions? The jury couldn't reach a verdict.

I really marvel at how you think this is a good point, or how you think this would sway anyone. The idea that person B cannot be found guilty, because person A wasn't found guilty on a similar count in an entirely different set of facts, well that's just Guilliani'esq.

This is nothing more than preparation to dismiss guilty pleas and convictions because: 1) you know, sometimes people who are found/plead guilty are really innocent, so these guys must be innocent too; and 2) John Edwards was not guilty, so these people can't be guilty either.

I mean, do you really read you own posts and think "boy I'm doing a good job here?"

The next time I hear and Australian comment on how bad the US educational system is, I'm just gonna show them one of your posts and watch them burst into tears.

 

[waiguoren]

They do not need "direct evidence" (circumstantial is fine and overwhelming here, regardless of whether you admit it or not; and 12 other people may not be as stupid/partisan), nor is the standard any different from any other criminal count.

What is the "overwhelming evidence" to which you refer? If Trump had a catch-and-kill relationship with National Enquirer going back 10 years, your case would be a flop. The Edwards payments had no precursor, were much larger, and the scheme was much more involved (shuttle the mistress around the country to avoid the media) and the jury still couldn't convict.

 

[waiguoren]

The idea that person B cannot be found guilty, because person A wasn't found guilty on a similar count in an entirely different set of facts, well that's just Guilliani'esq.

That's a strawman.

This is nothing more than preparation to dismiss guilty pleas and convictions because: 1) you know, sometimes people who are found/plead guilty are really innocent, so these guys must be innocent too; and 2) John Edwards was not guilty, so these people can't be guilty either.

No. The point is that you can't have it both ways. Were the Edwards payments "campaign contributions" or not, in your opinion?