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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobby 3 Sticks said:
Lol @ trying to say the Woodward stories are false because they're denied.

If someone said you bashed your employer whether you did or not of course you'd deny it .

I'm much more inclined to believe Woodward than anyone in the administration
Click to expand...
I didn't kill my wife but even if I did it was an accident.
 
Watching an interview with the Mooch on fake news CNN.

He's turned into a well-spoken unofficial spokesman for Trump's administration, even if I disagree with much of what he says.
 
OeuvrePressure said:
Watching an interview with the Mooch on fake news CNN.

He's turned into a well-spoken unofficial spokesman for Trump's administration, even if I disagree with much of what he says.
Click to expand...
He must had signed an NDA and now has a roll on the Trump 2020 train.
 
Dershowitz: Even if you say something that is absolutely the truth, and you pass a lie detector test, but you get some sleazy flipped witness who has been threatened with his family going to jail unless he composes or sings, nevertheless he can be charged with lying if they have one witness who contradicts what you said. That's why when [Giuliani] said "the truth isn't the truth", that's essentially what he meant and every criminal defense lawyer and prosecutor who is honest and experienced will tell you the same thing That's why people don't go and speak to prosecutors. Ask Martha Stewart what happened when she did.

Link
 
President Trump's personal attorney, Jay Sekulow: We have an ongoing dialogue with the Office of Special Counsel. Myself and my colleagues have continued an ongoing dialogue. That dialogue continues. I'm not going to discuss the contents of what has been agreed to or not agreed to, but I will tell you this: I'm not concerned about the president responding---if we decide to accept the proposition of responding to written questions---responding to questions about Russia and interference with the election. There's no crime here. There's no underlying crime that the president was involved in. I'm not concerned about where that goes. Look, they ask questions and we think they're appropriate. We would respond. Again, we haven't even responded to the special counsel's response to our letter.

 
Last edited:
ScottE said:
Are there betting odds available on whether this one will resign or flip, or both?
Click to expand...
Now you're speaking my language.

Will you take an even-odds name bet on the proposition that Sekulow represents Trump until the end of the Mueller probe? (Me for, you against).
 
OeuvrePressure said:
It's a pointless battle since both sides can assert whatever they want and can't be gainsaid.

I put the allegations in Woodward's book in the likely-to-very-likely category. I'm sure everything he said sounds quite believable about this clown. But it's all so much pissing in the wind like any book of allegations no matter how well researched.
Click to expand...
If you dig a little into Bob Woodward, you'll get a better understanding of A.) this stuff is all 100% true and B.) backed up and triangulated with multiple sources of proof (memos, tapes, etc...). There is a reason nobody will sue him for what he asserts...because they will be deposed and he will embarrass them with the proof.

The conversation with Trump was hilarious. Listening to that orange scumbag lie to Bob to directly was a real pleasure. The Kelly-ann part was equally hilarious.
 
andnowweknow said:
If you dig a little into Bob Woodward, you'll get a better understanding of A.) this stuff is all 100% true and B.) backed up and triangulated with multiple sources of proof (memos, tapes, etc...). There is a reason nobody will sue him for what he asserts...because they will be deposed and he will embarrass them with the proof.

The conversation with Trump was hilarious. Listening to that orange scumbag lie to Bob to directly was a real pleasure. The Kelly-ann part was equally hilarious.
Click to expand...
Trump threatened to sue when the last book came out, he didn't, gee I wonder why?
 
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 424 pages of FBI records, including an email revealing that recently fired FBI official Peter Strzok created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter then-FBI director James Comey sent to Congress notifying lawmakers of the discovery of Hillary Clinton emails on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Another email suggests that the FBI had not yet completed its review of Clinton’s emails by the time Comey sent a second letter to Congress on November 6, 2016, reconfirming his belief that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be charged with a crime.


The records were produced as a result of a June 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 1, 2017, request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01448)). Judicial Watch is seeking:



1) All drafts of James Comey’s statement closing the Clinton email investigation, from his original draft in April or May 2016 to the final version.

2) All records of communications between or among FBI officials regarding Comey’s draft statement closing the Clinton email investigation, including all memoranda and/or analyses of the factual and/or legal justification for his July 5, 2016 announcement regarding his decision not to seek Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution.

3)All records previously provided to the Office of Special Counsel in the course of its now-closed Hatch Act investigation of Mr. Comey.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ying-them-of-clinton-emails-on-weiner-laptop/
 
waiguoren said:
In its initial report the Wall Street Journal elaborated that the payment was made through a private company, Essential Consultants LLC. The company was founded by Cohen on October 17, 2016, in Delaware. At the time, [Clifford] was reportedly in talks to tell her account to Good Morning America and Slate.The Daily Beast was also in talks with [Clifford] "after three sources—including fellow porn star Alana Evans—told The Daily Beast that [Clifford] and Trump were involved. [Clifford] ultimately backed out on November 3, just five days before the 2016 election."


Again, your case would be strengthened if Trump had turned down an earlier extortion attempt of Clifford's two or more years prior, when Trump was not involved in politics. Do you have any evidence of that? Otherwise, you're in the very dicey territory of inferring motivations. The mere appearance of misconduct is not sufficient to prove misconduct.

Also, you still haven't responded to this:

At least you're consistent. To me, it's ridiculous to interpret such payments as "campaign contributions". How far can we stretch this? If Trump pays for a nice massage during campaign season, should he be obligated to disclose to the FEC his payment to his masseuse as a "campaign contribution" on the grounds that it benefitted Trump on the campaign trail? @Rational Poster's position is "yes", as I understand it. I'm guessing you'll say "no".




To me, this looks like you're being tribalistic. You haven't seen all the evidence yet, but you're pre-judging guilt/innocence. I think the most likely outcome is that this comes down to he-said/he-said with Trump/Cohen. As part of what I believe is an implicit plea agreement, Cohen wants to claim that Trump (1) directed him to make the payment (2) for the sole purpose of impacting the campaign. Trump will probably argue that (1) he himself made the payment via Cohen and (2) it was made to protect his reputation and family, not to influence the campaign. In the absence of further tapes or documents (no, I'm not making any assumptions) this should result in acquittal.

Now let's zoom out and look at the political landscape. Mueller's primary goal is to investigate coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Weissman/Mueller view Trump as the target of the investigation. In my view and particularly in light of the news that Mueller will accept written responses on Russia-related questions, Mueller/Weissman's best chance to implicate their target now is on charges not related to their primary goal---possible "in-kind campaign contributions" from Trump to a former alleged mistress. Even if Mueller explicitly names Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to pay Clifford, the non-partisan elements of the public will yawn. Put simply, people don't care about Trump "paying some whores", especially when the mainstream media and the Democrats spent two years trying to convince them that "Russia collusion" was a serious threat to the Trump presidency.
Click to expand...

Call me tribalistic if you want, I am just not willing to get lost in the high priced legal bullshit (e.g., not everyone can afford to hire Alan Dershowitz to help keep them out of jail when they cut their ex-wife's throat, along with her boyfriend's).

And we know that Cohen didn't commit bank fraud and start a phony LLC in repose to Stormy's accusations circa 2011, he just threatened to sue In Touch weekly if it printed the story, and (according to Stormy) sent out a goon to threaten bodily harm to her. In 2016 though (and yes, it does appear that through her shady ex-lawyer she came forward again), team Trump payed her $130,000.

And I did respond to your attempted counterfactual massage scenario, but to elaborate, for starters, massages don't have the homoerotic undertones over here that they do in your country, naked men don't lather each other up and then beat each other with branches over here, the Mike Pence wing is not as comfortable with its heterosexuality as are Russian men.:D Beyond that though, we are not talking about a slippery slope to "see how far we can stretch this", with anything being a potential campaign contribution, that is a counterfactual foil to try to move the debate away from the fact that voters knowing that Trump was out humping porn stars (that reminded him of his daughters:eek:), while his new wife was home breastfeeding their new son, would have cost Trump votes, and therefore keeping that information private had a clear benefit to his campaign. Let's cross that counterfactual bridge of massages being considered campaign related if we come to it.

As for Trump trying parse out that the payments were made to protect his reputation, one's reputation is inextricable from one's candidacy for POTUS. And as for any claims that they were to protect his family, please, there is a decades long history of his extramarital trysts in the media, him bragging about his sex with lesbians on Howard Stern, and him stating that his reputation, when it comes to infidelity, was worse than Bill Clinton's. And, I think it is safe to assume that Melania didn't ever believe that Trump loved her for her mind.

We disagree if this will come down to a he said verses he said situation, as I assume there will be other corroborating evidence, and you seem to be sticking with the null hypothesis on that. But, Trump has lied his ass off about this whole situation from before the election: "The media is trying to rig the election by giving credence — and this is so true — by giving credence to false stories that have no validity and make it the front page", and of course his claim that he didn't know about the payments and his "You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen, Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael” when questioned by reporters on Air Force One. Trump changes his story in every interview. We will see if Avenatti gets his wish, but a he said verses he said contest of putting up Cohen's deposition against Trump's deposition wouldn't end well for Trump.

As for your satellite view of the political landscape, Mueller is tasked with looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, in which the question of if any Americans conspired with any Russians is subsumed. You saying Trump is their "target," and that "implicating their target" is their "primary goal" is you repeating the tribalistic views of the Trump faction, and isn't up to your usual standards of legal pedantry.

The reports about the written questions may or may not be true, and they may or may not put Trump in a tight spot regarding the "Russia thing". I don't think we can say that the investigation regarding any coordination between Russia and Team Trump is over until Roger Stone has been deposed, and until Paul Manafort takes his prison sentence like a depression era gangster and doesn't snitch to the G Men.

th
 
I have a gif of trump blowing a kiss at comey
TatteredAshamedChick-size_restricted.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,189
Messages
58,264,659
Members
175,986
Latest member
Dakota DeSousa

Share this page

Back
Top