Except I’ve been here longer than both of you.
Now, let’s get back to you making a fool of yourself.
Gagging for it (SCO Thread v. 29) Update Mueller Report Released
- Thread starter MicroBrew
- Start date
- Status
Except I’ve been here longer than both of you.
Now, let’s get back to you making a fool of yourself.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2018
- Messages
- 5,756
- Reaction score
- 2
The investigation was setup by Obama administration to subvert Trump. Facts are there with how it was started, the lack of probably cause. But they lost. So then it was made into a beacon of hope to prevent libtards from suiciding themselves. I hate saying "libtards" but it's become appropriate today.
Those morons went out to protest Trump election. When was the last time that happened? The heartbroken losers went out to protest losing. That's unheard of.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
Treason: the crime of betraying one's country.
Only a moron would disagree that secretly working on behalf of other countries, particularly hostile countries, adverse to the interests of one's country and contrary to the electoral sovereignty of one's country isn't treason.
I did not know Ken Starr's a Trump cocksucker acting like there was no obstruction of justice because he did what he had the power to do and ignoring what many other legal experts cited re: corrupt intent.
Also bringing up potential obstruction when other experts said the obstruction doesn't necessarily have to succeed just like attempted murder or attempted bank robbery.
Also bringing up potential obstruction when other experts said the obstruction doesn't necessarily have to succeed just like attempted murder or attempted bank robbery.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
The investigation into Russia was started and is being run by lifelong Republicans. Pick a different angle as you have plenty of legitimate things to say. Saying Obama started this is retarded.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
@Quipling
It is striking that a judge just sentenced Paul Manafort, a major target of the Mueller investigation, to only 47 months in prison. The Sentencing Guidelines justified a sentence well above fifteen years. It was all-important that Manafort, who had been the head of the Trump presidential campaign, receive a strong sentence.
This was partly for the general reason in sentencing, to send the message to potential malefactors of the consequences. But, it was also needed to persuade Manafort to tell Mueller (and, eventually, in some forum, the public) the truth about President Trump and Russia.
Instead, this weak sentence sends these kind of messages: it is not so bad to use Republican connections to cash in with Putin’s allies; Trump’s campaign manager is worthy of much, much more respect than in the Sentencing Guidelines; Mueller’s quest for the Russia connection deserves little help.
Senior U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis was nominated to the bench in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, who favored conservative picks. Before then, he had worked since 1970 for Hunton and Williams, a very well known conservative Richmond firm.
President Reagan nominated Judge Ellis to the Eastern District of Virginia. Presidents have a special reason to want to stack that particular court with conservatives. The Pentagon and the CIA are in that district. There is a great desire among conservatives to stack that district court to handle the cases that concern national security brought in that district, including espionage cases.
Take a comparison of the Manafort case with another prosecution of a political figure, a Democratic Congressman from Louisiana named William J. Jefferson. I was a peripheral observer of that case. The FBI had raided Jefferson’s Congressional office and carried off his computer hard drive. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the violation of Congressional independence by that raid, and I was the principal witness (because I knew the established limits on prosecution tactics as a former House General Counsel and I was now a professor.)
Jefferson’s case basically hinged on charges of bribery. It was nationally famous because agents raiding his house found cash in the freezer.
Manafort may have gotten off easy with four years, but Ellis threw the book at Jefferson. In 2009 Ellis sentenced Jefferson to 13 years, the longest sentence of any Congressman to that date. (After further twists and turns Ellis let Jefferson off in December 2017 for five years time served.) It seems that while Judge Ellis can sympathize with Manafort, the Republican presidential campaign manager, he did not sympathize with Jefferson.
In the interest of fairness it is worth noting that Ellis stated opposition to mandatory minimums.
And there are some who speak favorably of his lack of political leanings. This is from a Washington Post profile of him: "Lawyers say that although Ellis might be tough on them, politics is not the Reagan appointee’s motivation.
“He is personally a Republican, and his political opinions did not line up with mine, but I literally cannot recall an instance where I thought that was an issue. He’s not an ideological judge, he’s a law-driven judge,” said Emily Martin, general counsel for the National Women’s Law Center and a former clerk for Ellis.
Everything now depends on the sentence Manafort receives in his other case, and whether it is consecutive or concurrent. Imagine the relief for Trump if it is a sentence no longer than 47 months and it runs concurrently. If Manafort had gotten (or still gets) a sentence of more than 15 years, Trump would face the problem of pardoning Manafort to prevent him from experiencing great pressure to cooperate with Mueller.
The press and public have been waiting for the first use of the pardon power as a major statement about Trump.
Now, Trump might just get off and not need to display the pardon weapon. Trump should say "Thank you, Judge Ellis."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charle...OoBUd5rRzAE9B3WcgcWb56-qov-H0hx8#35afa4455256
On a related note, I fucking hate it when writers confuse ideology (this judge "isn't ideological") with politics. No conservative is actually ideological: they're politically reactionary and corrupt. They bat for each other not because of shared ideology but because of shared interest.
It is striking that a judge just sentenced Paul Manafort, a major target of the Mueller investigation, to only 47 months in prison. The Sentencing Guidelines justified a sentence well above fifteen years. It was all-important that Manafort, who had been the head of the Trump presidential campaign, receive a strong sentence.
This was partly for the general reason in sentencing, to send the message to potential malefactors of the consequences. But, it was also needed to persuade Manafort to tell Mueller (and, eventually, in some forum, the public) the truth about President Trump and Russia.
Instead, this weak sentence sends these kind of messages: it is not so bad to use Republican connections to cash in with Putin’s allies; Trump’s campaign manager is worthy of much, much more respect than in the Sentencing Guidelines; Mueller’s quest for the Russia connection deserves little help.
Senior U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis was nominated to the bench in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, who favored conservative picks. Before then, he had worked since 1970 for Hunton and Williams, a very well known conservative Richmond firm.
President Reagan nominated Judge Ellis to the Eastern District of Virginia. Presidents have a special reason to want to stack that particular court with conservatives. The Pentagon and the CIA are in that district. There is a great desire among conservatives to stack that district court to handle the cases that concern national security brought in that district, including espionage cases.
Take a comparison of the Manafort case with another prosecution of a political figure, a Democratic Congressman from Louisiana named William J. Jefferson. I was a peripheral observer of that case. The FBI had raided Jefferson’s Congressional office and carried off his computer hard drive. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the violation of Congressional independence by that raid, and I was the principal witness (because I knew the established limits on prosecution tactics as a former House General Counsel and I was now a professor.)
Jefferson’s case basically hinged on charges of bribery. It was nationally famous because agents raiding his house found cash in the freezer.
Manafort may have gotten off easy with four years, but Ellis threw the book at Jefferson. In 2009 Ellis sentenced Jefferson to 13 years, the longest sentence of any Congressman to that date. (After further twists and turns Ellis let Jefferson off in December 2017 for five years time served.) It seems that while Judge Ellis can sympathize with Manafort, the Republican presidential campaign manager, he did not sympathize with Jefferson.
In the interest of fairness it is worth noting that Ellis stated opposition to mandatory minimums.
And there are some who speak favorably of his lack of political leanings. This is from a Washington Post profile of him: "Lawyers say that although Ellis might be tough on them, politics is not the Reagan appointee’s motivation.
“He is personally a Republican, and his political opinions did not line up with mine, but I literally cannot recall an instance where I thought that was an issue. He’s not an ideological judge, he’s a law-driven judge,” said Emily Martin, general counsel for the National Women’s Law Center and a former clerk for Ellis.
Everything now depends on the sentence Manafort receives in his other case, and whether it is consecutive or concurrent. Imagine the relief for Trump if it is a sentence no longer than 47 months and it runs concurrently. If Manafort had gotten (or still gets) a sentence of more than 15 years, Trump would face the problem of pardoning Manafort to prevent him from experiencing great pressure to cooperate with Mueller.
The press and public have been waiting for the first use of the pardon power as a major statement about Trump.
Now, Trump might just get off and not need to display the pardon weapon. Trump should say "Thank you, Judge Ellis."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charle...OoBUd5rRzAE9B3WcgcWb56-qov-H0hx8#35afa4455256
On a related note, I fucking hate it when writers confuse ideology (this judge "isn't ideological") with politics. No conservative is actually ideological: they're politically reactionary and corrupt. They bat for each other not because of shared ideology but because of shared interest.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2017
- Messages
- 3,778
- Reaction score
- 2,162
tRUmp watching Super Bowl with ex owner of spa linked to human trafficking .
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/08/po...t-superbowl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Report is from Miami Herald.
tRUmp isn't dumb enough to have visited that spa while POTUS is he?
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/08/po...t-superbowl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Report is from Miami Herald.
tRUmp isn't dumb enough to have visited that spa while POTUS is he?
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 50,728
- Reaction score
- 35,572
And get punished far less. What did those motherfuckers who caused the GFC get? Not a fucking thing, that's what.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
Bob, I want you to stop using the Cormier gif. I want you to keep laughing incredulously though.
Hey Einstein, here’s a piece of advice. Don’t take your legal advice from cable news.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 67,194
- Reaction score
- 100,072
"A Texas woman was sentenced to five years behind bars this week for voting illegally in the 2016 election while on supervised release from federal prison."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-gets-5-years-prison-voting-illegally-n861516
And Paul Manafort who had $25M in unpaid taxes, lied to the FBI, and a littany of other crimes and he gets 4 years. What a joke.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Michael Cohen facing mounting questions over inconsistencies in testimony
Michael Cohen is facing steadily mounting criticism over apparent inconsistencies in his testimony before the House Oversight Committee last week, concerning his statements on everything from a potential pardon to the Trump Tower Moscow project to his prospects for a job in the Trump administration.
The former personal attorney to President Trump dished to lawmakers on a range of scandals connected to the president, providing Democrats with numerous leads regarding potential wrongdoing in the president's business dealings and more. In the wake of the testimony, several committees have ramped up their anti-Trump investigations. Yet the veracity of Cohen's testimony has been challenged on several fronts, with some Republicans claiming he may have committed perjury.
“As I warned before Mr. Cohen’s appearance before the Oversight Committee, relying on an admitted liar to attack the President is beneath the dignity of the People’s House,” committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in a statement Thursday, urging committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., to join his call for a Justice Department review of Cohen’s testimony.
One section of Cohen’s testimony that has come under scrutiny was his claim that he “never asked for, nor would [he] accept, a pardon from Mr. Trump.”
But on Thursday, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, said that Cohen was “open to the ongoing ‘dangling’ of a possible pardon by Trump representatives privately and in the media.” Davis also said that Cohen “directed his attorney to explore possibilities of a pardon at one point with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well as other lawyers advising President Trump.”
Davis, defending his client’s credibility, did say, however, that since July 2, 2018 when he began representing Cohen, he has said that he “would never accept a pardon from President Trump even if offered.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mi...g-questions-over-inconsistencies-in-testimony
Michael Cohen is facing steadily mounting criticism over apparent inconsistencies in his testimony before the House Oversight Committee last week, concerning his statements on everything from a potential pardon to the Trump Tower Moscow project to his prospects for a job in the Trump administration.
The former personal attorney to President Trump dished to lawmakers on a range of scandals connected to the president, providing Democrats with numerous leads regarding potential wrongdoing in the president's business dealings and more. In the wake of the testimony, several committees have ramped up their anti-Trump investigations. Yet the veracity of Cohen's testimony has been challenged on several fronts, with some Republicans claiming he may have committed perjury.
“As I warned before Mr. Cohen’s appearance before the Oversight Committee, relying on an admitted liar to attack the President is beneath the dignity of the People’s House,” committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in a statement Thursday, urging committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., to join his call for a Justice Department review of Cohen’s testimony.
One section of Cohen’s testimony that has come under scrutiny was his claim that he “never asked for, nor would [he] accept, a pardon from Mr. Trump.”
But on Thursday, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, said that Cohen was “open to the ongoing ‘dangling’ of a possible pardon by Trump representatives privately and in the media.” Davis also said that Cohen “directed his attorney to explore possibilities of a pardon at one point with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well as other lawyers advising President Trump.”
Davis, defending his client’s credibility, did say, however, that since July 2, 2018 when he began representing Cohen, he has said that he “would never accept a pardon from President Trump even if offered.”
“That continues to be the case,” Davis said. “And his statement at the Oversight Hearing was true—and consistent with his post joint defense agreement commitment to tell the truth.”
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani blasted Cohen on Twitter Thursday.
“Never means never ever not after July 2, 2018, which is the latest deception. Another perjury and more prison,” Giuliani tweeted, adding later: “The defense now to Cohen saying under oath he NEVER asked for a pardon is a familiar one; What’s the Meaning of Never. Serial liars often try the same deception too often. Let’s hope Congress and DOJ are outraged at Cohen’s disrespecting them by perjuring himself repeatedly.”
Giuliani added: “I’m still waiting for the House Dems to demand a perjury prosecution for the man who made fools out of them by lying under oath. Do they care about the truth? Or is it get Trump at any cost, even to their own integrity?”
On Friday, President Trump blasted Cohen, confirming that he denied Cohen's request for a pardon.
"Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!" Trump tweeted.
Cummings, during a committee hearing Thursday on a separate matter, said he was a “deliberate” person and would look at Cohen's testimony when challenged by Jordan. A spokesperson for Cummings did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the timeline for when he might review the hearing transcript.
Meanwhile, Cohen has been criticized for his statements about potentially working in the Trump White House. During the hearing last week, Jordan accused Cohen of turning on the president because he didn’t land a job at the White House. Cohen denied this, saying he just wanted to be “the personal attorney to the president.”
“I got exactly what I wanted,” Cohen testified.
During the hearing, the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump sought to fact-check Cohen on Twitter.
“Michael was lobbying EVERYONE to be ‘Chief of Staff.’ It was the biggest joke in the campaign and around the office. Did he just perjure himself again?” Eric Trump tweeted last week.
Shortly afterward, Davis acknowledged that Cohen was, in fact, at one time considering the possibility of working in the White House.
“The fact is, early on, Michael Cohen speculated about a possible position in the White House,” Davis said in a statement. “But after he consulted with his family and friends, he decided that he preferred to stay at home in New York City and be ‘personal attorney to the president.’”
Another inconsistency is related to the Trump Tower project in Moscow. Cohen is going to jail, in part, for lying to Congress during a closed-door hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 about the timeline of communications with Russia about the project. Cohen initially told the committee communications ended before the first contest in the 2016 primary season but later admitted they continued through June 2016, after Trump had become the Republican nominee.
During last week’s hearing, Cohen told the committee that Trump’s attorneys, including Jay Sekulow, reviewed and edited the statement he provided to Congress in 2017 about the project, including concerning the timeline of discussions.
But Sekulow said in a statement after the hearing last week that the “testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false.”
And Fox News reported on Wednesday that records show "the original date in the original draft" of Cohen's false congressional testimony on the conclusion of the failed Moscow negotiations was January 2016 -- undercutting allegations that Trump attorneys made edits to alter the negotiation's timeline.
The questions emerging since the testimony speak to the concerns Republican lawmakers voiced when Cohen was before the panel last week.
“It’s the first time a convicted perjurer has been brought back to be a star witness in a hearing, and there’s a reason this is a first, because no other committee would do it,” Jordan said in his opening statement last week, taking a swipe at Cummings.
Cohen’s testimony slamming the president as a conman also came under question following the revelations of a book proposal he shopped around just weeks before the FBI raided his office as part of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s criminal investigation into his personal business dealings.
The book proposal reportedly portrayed Trump in a positive light, countering negative descriptions of his then-boss.
“All of these things have been said about my longtime boss, Donald J. Trump. None of it is true,” the proposal reportedly said.
Cohen testified that Trump was a “racist” a “conman” and a cheat.”
Trump, himself, weighed in on Cohen’s testimony.
“Book is exact opposite of his fake testimony, which is now a lie!” Trump, in part, tweeted last week. “Congress must demand the transcript of Michael Cohen’s new book, given to publishers a short time ago. Your heads will spin when you see the lies, misrepresentations and contradictions against his Thursday testimony. Like a different person! He is totally discredited!”
Davis, in response to the reports, said in a statement: “Sometime in early 2018, Mr. Cohen was offered a substantial advance for a proposal regarding a book on understanding Donald Trump. Mr. Cohen ultimately elected not to proceed. In other words, POTUS has yet lied again...but what’s the difference between 9000 or 9001 lies?”
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani blasted Cohen on Twitter Thursday.
“Never means never ever not after July 2, 2018, which is the latest deception. Another perjury and more prison,” Giuliani tweeted, adding later: “The defense now to Cohen saying under oath he NEVER asked for a pardon is a familiar one; What’s the Meaning of Never. Serial liars often try the same deception too often. Let’s hope Congress and DOJ are outraged at Cohen’s disrespecting them by perjuring himself repeatedly.”
Giuliani added: “I’m still waiting for the House Dems to demand a perjury prosecution for the man who made fools out of them by lying under oath. Do they care about the truth? Or is it get Trump at any cost, even to their own integrity?”
On Friday, President Trump blasted Cohen, confirming that he denied Cohen's request for a pardon.
"Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!" Trump tweeted.
Cummings, during a committee hearing Thursday on a separate matter, said he was a “deliberate” person and would look at Cohen's testimony when challenged by Jordan. A spokesperson for Cummings did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the timeline for when he might review the hearing transcript.
Meanwhile, Cohen has been criticized for his statements about potentially working in the Trump White House. During the hearing last week, Jordan accused Cohen of turning on the president because he didn’t land a job at the White House. Cohen denied this, saying he just wanted to be “the personal attorney to the president.”
“I got exactly what I wanted,” Cohen testified.
During the hearing, the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump sought to fact-check Cohen on Twitter.
“Michael was lobbying EVERYONE to be ‘Chief of Staff.’ It was the biggest joke in the campaign and around the office. Did he just perjure himself again?” Eric Trump tweeted last week.
Shortly afterward, Davis acknowledged that Cohen was, in fact, at one time considering the possibility of working in the White House.
“The fact is, early on, Michael Cohen speculated about a possible position in the White House,” Davis said in a statement. “But after he consulted with his family and friends, he decided that he preferred to stay at home in New York City and be ‘personal attorney to the president.’”
Another inconsistency is related to the Trump Tower project in Moscow. Cohen is going to jail, in part, for lying to Congress during a closed-door hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 about the timeline of communications with Russia about the project. Cohen initially told the committee communications ended before the first contest in the 2016 primary season but later admitted they continued through June 2016, after Trump had become the Republican nominee.
During last week’s hearing, Cohen told the committee that Trump’s attorneys, including Jay Sekulow, reviewed and edited the statement he provided to Congress in 2017 about the project, including concerning the timeline of discussions.
But Sekulow said in a statement after the hearing last week that the “testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false.”
And Fox News reported on Wednesday that records show "the original date in the original draft" of Cohen's false congressional testimony on the conclusion of the failed Moscow negotiations was January 2016 -- undercutting allegations that Trump attorneys made edits to alter the negotiation's timeline.
The questions emerging since the testimony speak to the concerns Republican lawmakers voiced when Cohen was before the panel last week.
“It’s the first time a convicted perjurer has been brought back to be a star witness in a hearing, and there’s a reason this is a first, because no other committee would do it,” Jordan said in his opening statement last week, taking a swipe at Cummings.
Cohen’s testimony slamming the president as a conman also came under question following the revelations of a book proposal he shopped around just weeks before the FBI raided his office as part of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s criminal investigation into his personal business dealings.
The book proposal reportedly portrayed Trump in a positive light, countering negative descriptions of his then-boss.
“All of these things have been said about my longtime boss, Donald J. Trump. None of it is true,” the proposal reportedly said.
Cohen testified that Trump was a “racist” a “conman” and a cheat.”
Trump, himself, weighed in on Cohen’s testimony.
“Book is exact opposite of his fake testimony, which is now a lie!” Trump, in part, tweeted last week. “Congress must demand the transcript of Michael Cohen’s new book, given to publishers a short time ago. Your heads will spin when you see the lies, misrepresentations and contradictions against his Thursday testimony. Like a different person! He is totally discredited!”
Davis, in response to the reports, said in a statement: “Sometime in early 2018, Mr. Cohen was offered a substantial advance for a proposal regarding a book on understanding Donald Trump. Mr. Cohen ultimately elected not to proceed. In other words, POTUS has yet lied again...but what’s the difference between 9000 or 9001 lies?”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mi...g-questions-over-inconsistencies-in-testimony
Perhaps if y’all didn’t constantly embarrass yourselves, I wouldn’t need to laugh at you.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Messages
- 30,615
- Reaction score
- 2,008
Liberty and justice , only for the rich.
Just accept the fact you live in an oligarchy and its only going to get worse.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,142
- Reaction score
- 15,143
The Republicans have no power in the house, that ship has sailed. Maybe had they done their oversight jobs when in power this complaining might matter, but they didn't, so it doesn't.
#conservativetears
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Voters know that Cohen is an untrustworthy rat. The more the Democrats parade him around like a star witness, the more Trump's 2020 chances improve.
So Manafort should walk?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 27,063
- Reaction score
- 39,114
How are the Trump Lickspittles going to attack Allen Weisselberg?
Dude is not a scumbag. Gladly wait for the talking point, when he lays out the Trump Crime Family, massive amount of financial crimes.
There is an ancient Buddahist saying that goes, A man whose lawyer and accountant flip, is certainly fucked.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
As I have been writing for well over a year here, the SDNY investigation is much more threatening to Trump legally and politically than the Mueller probe. No fundamental disagreement here. Also, your comment is humorous and deserving of a 'like'.
- Status
