Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 17:34:45 GMT
Matt Murphy...
“CNN reporting Mark Meadows turns down CoS job.”
That is 2 that we know of.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 10, 2018 17:53:16 GMT
Matt Murphy... “CNN reporting Mark Meadows turns down CoS job.” That is 2 that we know of. This is starting to get pretty hilarious. I’m pretty sure Mick Mulvaney doesn’t want the job, either. (I have to laugh because otherwise I’d be crying.)
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Dec 10, 2018 18:04:36 GMT
Matt Murphy... “CNN reporting Mark Meadows turns down CoS job.” That is 2 that we know of. This is starting to get pretty hilarious. I’m pretty sure Mick Mulvaney doesn’t want the job, either. (I have to laugh because otherwise I’d be crying.)Try both at the same time, it’s been working for me, pretty cathartic.
|
|
J u l e e
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,531
Location: Cincinnati
Jun 28, 2014 2:50:47 GMT
|
Post by J u l e e on Dec 10, 2018 18:53:01 GMT
"I AM NOT A CROCK," 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I think what I just did would be considered a guffaw. Involuntary super loud bursty type of laugh. This is awesome!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 19:07:09 GMT
Maria Butina, Russian, has taken a plea deal, no details yet... CNN
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 19:11:25 GMT
I searched your recent posts (result below) because I thought the “private transaction” defense sounded like something you had floated. Absent the possibility that you are advising the president (heh), is this the generally assumed roadblock to any possible indictment for the payoffs accusation? Or is it the assumed (and presumably sucessful) defense if indicted? I thought campaign funds initially paid Daniels through the account Cohen set up.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 19:29:00 GMT
Ted Lieu..
“While it's fun to mock #SmockingGun & the spelling skills of stable genius, here's a key fact: @realdonaldtrump has now moved from saying there is no evidence of collusion to there is no smoking gun. Mueller hasn't yet revealed what he knows & Trump is moving the goalposts again.”
Good point as we don’t what Mueller has.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 19:35:34 GMT
I missed this latest honor for trump.
The Daily Beast.
”Washington Post Introduces ‘Bottomless Pinocchio’ Factcheck Level for Trump”
The Washington Post Fact Checker has introduced a new dishonesty rating custom-made for the Trump era: the “Bottomless Pinocchio.” The newspaper says the new tier will be issued to politicians who “repeat a false claim so many times that they are, in effect, engaging in campaigns of disinformation.” In order to be awarded the Bottomless Pinocchio, the claims must have received three or four Pinocchios from the Fact Checker, and must have been repeated 20 times. Fourteen statements made by Trump already qualify for the list—no other politician has yet been given the dubious honor. In an article announcing the introduction of the new level, the Post condemns Trump and says: “He is not merely making gaffes or misstating things, he is purposely injecting false information into the national conversation.” The most repeated falsehood so far, according to the Fact Checker, is Trump’s assertion that his tax cut was the biggest in history, followed by his exaggerations of the size of U.S. trade deficits.
An honor well deserved by trump. More so then any other elected official, past and present.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 19:44:52 GMT
It’s really interesting to watch the Republicans spin trump.
Aaron Rupar..
”On Fox News, @gopleader Kevin McCarthy downplays Trump campaign's repeated contacts with Russians in 2016.
"If you're in an international city, people interact with a lot of individuals."
”McCarthy downplays Trump's involvement in crimes: "What it shows is that if POTUS hires an attorney to solve a problem, he expects them to do it in legal manner... If an impeachable offense is a campaign finance problem, there are a lots of members who are going to have to leave"
”McCarthy urges House Dems to not investigate Trump: "I think America is too great of a nation to have such a small agenda. I think there are other problems out there that we should be focused on... we've investigated this for a long time."
I was really sorry CA re-elected this idiot.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Dec 10, 2018 19:46:35 GMT
Paging lizacreates . I searched your recent posts (result below) because I thought the “private transaction” defense sounded like something you had floated. Absent the possibility that you are advising the president (heh), is this the generally assumed roadblock to any possible indictment for the payoffs accusation? Or is it the assumed (and presumably sucessful) defense if indicted? If not indict-able, would it still have any teeth, e.g. an ethics violation? Talk Type to me slowly, please. Well, not really. At least not in my (contrarian) opinion. After reading all three documents, I was hoping for something more substantive in terms of tying all this directly to Trump. I mean, campaign finance violation for Trump? We already knew about that from summer when Cohen allocuted. Who would indict or impeach a president on that (especially after the Edwards case that bombed)? It’s a felony for Trump if you can prove intent to protect his candidacy, and prosecution of a federal crime requires establishment of intent. Any lawyer can tell you all Trump has to say in defense is he paid off mistresses to spare his family the distress/embarrassment so they’re not campaign-related. How does a prosecutor prove otherwise? Because Cohen said so? Defense can say Cohen is a proven liar (and they’re right because he lied to banks and to Congress). See what I mean? [snip] "Simple" private transaction. Not just a private transaction, but a "simple" one. As if paying off your mistresses is an everyday thing.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Dec 10, 2018 20:05:59 GMT
”McCarthy downplays Trump's involvement in crimes: "What it shows is that if POTUS hires an attorney to solve a problem, he expects them to do it in legal manner... If an impeachable offense is a campaign finance problem, there are a lots of members who are going to have to leave"If campaign finance irregularities were impeachable and meant they'd have to leave office? That might be okay with quite a few of us, actually. I know it's perfectly fine with me! I'd rather my elected officials not have that type of 'campaign finance' issue.
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Dec 10, 2018 20:55:34 GMT
Regarding campaign finance issues:
dt is alleging that Obama was also guilty of of campaign finance issues.
However, the issues with Obama finance violations were handled by the campaign directors.
dt's campaign financing violations were due to the direct instructions/orders of the candidate aka Individual 1.
apples to oranges
see:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/23/trump-campaign-finance-violations-obama-different/1072220002/
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Dec 10, 2018 20:58:59 GMT
Ayers is very young, very rich...and probably very smart to keep the “stank” off of him and get out before it gets bad.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 10, 2018 20:59:05 GMT
How much longer do we need to be embarrassed on a daily basis by the buffoonish thinking and tweeting? Damn, all this time I’ve been smocking wrong. I’ve been using my sewing machine. I’ll have to see about a smocking gun.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 10, 2018 21:08:03 GMT
Paging lizacreates . I searched your recent posts (result below) because I thought the “private transaction” defense sounded like something you had floated. Absent the possibility that you are advising the president (heh), is this the generally assumed roadblock to any possible indictment for the payoffs accusation? Or is it the assumed (and presumably sucessful) defense if indicted? If not indict-able, would it still have any teeth, e.g. an ethics violation? Talk Type to me slowly, please. "Simple" private transaction. Not just a private transaction, but a "simple" one. As if paying off your mistresses is an everyday thing. Just like paying your phone bill
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 10, 2018 21:13:00 GMT
Ayers is very young, very rich...and probably very smart to keep the “stank” off of him and get out before it gets bad. Who the hell would sign on now? If Mueller’s actual reputation, not the made up ‘reputation’ from Trumps tweets, is for being fair, thorough and gets his criminal. Most of Washington knows Mueller’s actual reputation- unless they are in alternate universe land. There’s only one position anyone upstanding would be want to fill at this point and that’s the VP.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Dec 10, 2018 21:28:42 GMT
Paging lizacreates . I searched your recent posts (result below) because I thought the “private transaction” defense sounded like something you had floated. Absent the possibility that you are advising the president (heh), is this the generally assumed roadblock to any possible indictment for the payoffs accusation? Or is it the assumed (and presumably sucessful) defense if indicted? If not indict-able, would it still have any teeth, e.g. an ethics violation? Talk Type to me slowly, please. Well, not really. At least not in my (contrarian) opinion. After reading all three documents, I was hoping for something more substantive in terms of tying all this directly to Trump. I mean, campaign finance violation for Trump? We already knew about that from summer when Cohen allocuted. Who would indict or impeach a president on that (especially after the Edwards case that bombed)? It’s a felony for Trump if you can prove intent to protect his candidacy, and prosecution of a federal crime requires establishment of intent. Any lawyer can tell you all Trump has to say in defense is he paid off mistresses to spare his family the distress/embarrassment so they’re not campaign-related. How does a prosecutor prove otherwise? Because Cohen said so? Defense can say Cohen is a proven liar (and they’re right because he lied to banks and to Congress). See what I mean? [snip] I apologize if my answer will equate to an essay, but it’s necessary for clarity. Maybe to your first question, yes to your second, and unlikely to your third. I don’t know if you’ll recall this, but a few months ago he was interviewed by Fox (?) and he said the funds used were his own personal funds. (Actually his personal funds and Trump Org funds.) At that time, I said that he is beginning to set up a defense that since they were his private funds used, the payoffs had nothing to do with the campaign. AND even if it did, a candidate has no dollar limits as to how much he wants to put into his campaign. Let me first say that there is nothing illegal about payoffs as far as nondisclosure agreements are concerned, and I have said as much many times on this board before. In fact, NDAs are usually created with inducements. The issue in Trump’s case was the intent. Did he do this because he did not want knowledge of the affairs to negatively affect his electability OR did he do this to spare his family, business reputation or the like? If it’s the former, it is a campaign violation because of three reasons: (1) Cohen fronted the $130,000 to Daniels which exceeded the personal contribution limit by $127,300 EVEN if Trump reimbursed him; (2) the payoff to McDougal was through Trump Org and corporations are barred from making contributions to candidate committees; and (3) neither was reported in FEC filings. And Trump is implicated if it is true that he directed Cohen to do all this. However, if it’s the latter, none of these matter because they are not campaign-related. I don’t know if Mueller has evidence of intent, but one of the reasons campaign finance violations are difficult to prosecute is because of the high bar of proving intent (that’s exactly what happened in the Edwards case). In criminal prosecution, the standard of ‘knowingly and willfully’ has to be met. Having said all that, the “roadblock” to an indictment of Trump while in office is not whatever defense he has for this alleged crime; the roadblock is the fact that DOJ has longstanding rules that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. In the Office of Legal Counsel’s memos, the preferred mechanism for remedy is impeachment. BUT (because there’s always a but)…if Mueller has evidence of a crime by the president, he can ask the AG to excuse him from adherence to the DOJ rule and allow him to indict. The statute that governs the Special Counsel’s conduct and accountability provides that ability: "Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General." The “extraordinary circumstances” could include, but not be limited to: (1) current political climate of hyperpartisanship that would preclude the Senate from voting for impeachment; (2) the continuance of criminal acts absent indictment; and (3) the possibility of running out the clock on the statute of limitations. Then it’s up to the AG whether he agrees or not. As to whether Mueller would do this or the AG would agree, no one knows. But it’s a feasible alternative. It’ll be a battle royale between the two sides, of course, but it will finally settle this issue once and for all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 21:55:34 GMT
"Here’s the twist: if Nick Ayers merely thought Trump was toast, all he’d have to do is stick with his existing job as Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff, and he could ride Pence into the Oval Office. Instead, Ayers’ decision to resign from the administration entirely is a sign that he thinks Trump and Pence are toast. Perhaps he looked at the mention of the Trump transition team in the Michael Flynn sentencing memo, and concluded that Pence – who ran the transition team – is also going down." - Palmer Report
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Dec 10, 2018 21:55:46 GMT
In fact, NDAs are usually created with inducements. The issue in Trump’s case was the intent. Did he do this because he did not want knowledge of the affairs to negatively affect his electability OR did he do this to spare his family, business reputation or the like? wasn't one of these payoffs only a couple weeks before the election? Seems kind of a HIGHLY suspicious time for a payoff ONLY to spare his family and business reputation since the 'relationship' was actually YEARS before that date. The timing of the payment seems to go towards intent with regards to his electability, to me. (in my totally inexpert opinion, anyway)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 21:57:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Dec 10, 2018 21:57:43 GMT
ha!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 21:59:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 22:03:43 GMT
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,786
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Dec 10, 2018 22:06:13 GMT
"Here’s the twist: if Nick Ayers merely thought Trump was toast, all he’d have to do is stick with his existing job as Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff, and he could ride Pence into the Oval Office. Instead, Ayers’ decision to resign from the administration entirely is a sign that he thinks Trump and Pence are toast. Perhaps he looked at the mention of the Trump transition team in the Michael Flynn sentencing memo, and concluded that Pence – who ran the transition team – is also going down." - Palmer Report I read this morning (I think it was the Boston Globe) that Ayers was already planning on leaving the position as Pence's Chief of Staff before Trump's job offer. He has young children (triplets) and was planning a move to the private sector. He was only going to agree to stay in the CoS position on a temporary basis until spring, but Trump wanted someone who was willing to stay in the position for two years.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Dec 10, 2018 22:10:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 10, 2018 22:28:07 GMT
The “extraordinary circumstances” could include, but not be limited to: (1) current political climate of hyperpartisanship that would preclude the Senate from voting for impeachment; (2) the continuance of criminal acts absent indictment; and (3) the possibility of running out the clock on the statute of limitations. Then it’s up to the AG whether he agrees or not. As to whether Mueller would do this or the AG would agree, no one knows. But it’s a feasible alternative. It’ll be a battle royale between the two sides, of course, but it will finally settle this issue once and for all. Actually all three would apply!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 16:43:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2018 22:35:08 GMT
Newsweek..
“Donald Trump told John Kelly he was out right before Christmas dinner for White House staff: Report bit.ly/2RKF8wp”
Merry Christmas John Kelly! Love Donald!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 10, 2018 22:35:17 GMT
i had NO IDEA the NRA supported smocking. I have been unable to find smocking guns at amazon or Joann’s, you think the NRA has links to smocking gun sellers? My neice just had a little girl so I see quite a bit of smocking in my future and I want the fastest, easiest method. If that’s a smocking gun then I need one.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Dec 10, 2018 22:56:37 GMT
In fact, NDAs are usually created with inducements. The issue in Trump’s case was the intent. Did he do this because he did not want knowledge of the affairs to negatively affect his electability OR did he do this to spare his family, business reputation or the like? wasn't one of these payoffs only a couple weeks before the election? Seems kind of a HIGHLY suspicious time for a payoff ONLY to spare his family and business reputation since the 'relationship' was actually YEARS before that date. The timing of the payment seems to go towards intent with regards to his electability, to me. (in my totally inexpert opinion, anyway) Of course it's suspicious, but where’s the evidence of intent? Like I said, I don’t know if Mueller has one. Maybe he does and we'll find out later. Daniels started talking to Jacob Weisberg in the Summer of 2016, but she said she was holding back the juicy details. By Oct there was an NDA and she was paid off. McDougal signed her NDA with American Media also in Summer 2016. When was she paid? I don’t recall. Cohen was supposedly obsessed with taping conversations. Is there a tape where he told Trump this is not above board but Trump said this will kill my chance, go ahead and do it anyway? (Wouldn’t it be something if a tape is what brings him down just like tapes brought down Nixon?) (In a past post, I said it was incredulous that Trump would think extramarital affairs would negatively affect his campaign. I mean, approximately two weeks before, the Access Hollywood tape was released and that’s for grabbing women’s genitals! And sure enough, none of it mattered because by then he had already firmly established his base. And if his base didn’t care about the AH tape, why would they care about consensual extramarital affairs?)
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Dec 11, 2018 0:38:49 GMT
trump.... “The Trump Administration has accomplished more than any other U.S. Administration in its first two (not even) years of existence, & we are having a great time doing it! All of this despite the Fake News Media, which has gone totally out of its mind-truly the Enemy of the People!” Such a insecure little person. If by accomplish he means undoing anything positive that Obama did, then yes. I was reading that he has even authorized some of the healthy school meals that Obama put in place. what would anyone have against healithier school meals? Not to nitpick, but I think the main gripes about the healthy school meals are that they are very expensive in some (maybe all areas), and that often times the food is just thrown away. The kids have to take the food options, even if they don’t want to eat it. So it’s literally just growing money into the trash can. Money that schools desperately need and could be used in another area. While I don’t think the healthy food initiative was terrible, I think it has been executed in wildly different ways brought the country, and it’s successes have either been unproven, or that it just flat out failed.
|
|