Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Locked
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:21 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:44 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:17 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:03 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:00 pm
Brian, you still seem to miss it.

There is no rule that any expense that is related to the campaign (or "directly related") must be paid with campaign funds, or is a campaign expense...
I'll just stop you there: So the American justice system which has just convicted Cohen on those exact grounds is a farce?
You stop me right there, after making a true statement? There is no rule that any expense that is related to the campaign must be paid with campaign funds or is a campaign expense -- because expenses that are related to the campaign but which also would exist "irrespective of" the campaign, are not campaign expenses. Why did you stop me there? Well, since you did - just confirm that you agree that I'm correct about the irrespective test.

I don't think it's farcical at all to have a system which does not convict you, or presume guilt, just because someone else pleads guilty to something. A system that would let prosecutors obtain plea deals with witnesses, and not just use that person as a witness for the prosecution in another case, but actually presume guilt of another person because of it - that would be a farce.

Here is Cohen's official plea agreement -- https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... WE8dw4k/v0 Would you be so kind as to tell me, exactly, what you think this says he pled guilty to? Here is the "Information" that Cohen said was substantially correct: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... 2qnRknE/v0
Shifting the burden a bit there eh? Do you think that Cohen's paying off of two women, one for the second time, in the run up to the election was of aid or benefit to the election campaign of his boss, and that this action was tantamount to an illegal campaign contribution? I'm asking because you now seem to be arguing against the conviction on the basis that the monies paid didn't come out of the campaign's coffers.
I think it probably aided the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix, but no, it's not an illegal campaign contribution, since Trump paid Cohen back (reimbursed) and it was an "irrespective" expense that would not be properly paid with campaign funds.

It was a plea deal, by the way.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by JimC » Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:59 pm

Forty Two wrote:

...I think it probably aided the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix...
So, basically, Trump should get off on the legal technicalities, even though his corrupt actions were clearly intended to protect his presidential campaign from scandal...

Were you a Jesuit in a previous life?
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:59 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:21 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:44 pm
...
Shifting the burden a bit there eh? Do you think that Cohen's paying off of two women, one for the second time, in the run up to the election was of aid or benefit to the election campaign of his boss, and that this action was tantamount to an illegal campaign contribution? I'm asking because you now seem to be arguing against the conviction on the basis that the monies paid didn't come out of the campaign's coffers.
I think it probably aided the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix, but no, it's not an illegal campaign contribution, since Trump paid Cohen back (reimbursed) and it was an "irrespective" expense that would not be properly paid with campaign funds.

It was a plea deal, by the way.
It seems to me that paying the ladies 'to keep a scandal out of the mix' during a general election campaign hardly counts as an 'irrespective expense' - unless you're using a special meaning of irrespective of course. If Cohen's payments 'probably aided the campaign' then they can be, and indeed have been, declared an improper campaign donation. I'm having trouble imagining a Universe in which those payments were made speculatively, coincidentally, or without regard or reference to the campaign and, again, the issue is not about the ladies being paid with campaign funds. So the issue becomes about whether the president-elect directed his personal attorney to violate campaign law on the understanding that he'd be paid back later. Cohen says that the president-elect directed him to make the payments - and that the Trump Organisation paid him back either 'directly or indirectly' after the fact. That doesn't sound like an 'irrespective expense' either does it? I guess one of the other reason which makes people a bit suspicious about all this is that the President changed his story so many times on this matter - but then again, everybody lies eh?

And yes, Cohen took a plea deal, but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean his conviction is unsound, or he's lying, or that the sequence of events or the evidence have been fabricated - just that he was banged to rights on some charges and took the option of assisting investigators in the hope of mitigating his sentence.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Cunt » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:17 pm

Even when Trump wasn't a pro politician, he is supposed to have lived a prostitute-free, ethically cleansed life - JUST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

What gets me is that so many of our politicians have 'served' the public their whole lives, and somehow ended up filthy rich.

I kind of think there is something stinky about that...at least Trump got rich the old fashioned way - by openly bashing competition rather than mysteriously gaining millions on a public 'servant' salary.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by JimC » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:30 pm

Cunt wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:17 pm
Even when Trump wasn't a pro politician, he is supposed to have lived a prostitute-free, ethically cleansed life - JUST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

What gets me is that so many of our politicians have 'served' the public their whole lives, and somehow ended up filthy rich.

I kind of think there is something stinky about that...at least Trump got rich the old fashioned way - by openly bashing competition rather than mysteriously gaining millions on a public 'servant' salary.
Again, like 42, this is no defence of Trump, but the tired old point that others have faults as well...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Cunt » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:53 pm

JimC wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:30 pm
Cunt wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:17 pm
Even when Trump wasn't a pro politician, he is supposed to have lived a prostitute-free, ethically cleansed life - JUST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

What gets me is that so many of our politicians have 'served' the public their whole lives, and somehow ended up filthy rich.

I kind of think there is something stinky about that...at least Trump got rich the old fashioned way - by openly bashing competition rather than mysteriously gaining millions on a public 'servant' salary.
Again, like 42, this is no defence of Trump, but the tired old point that others have faults as well...
Well, you do seem to be holding him to a higher standard than other presidential fuckers, but lets see...would you be just as outraged if congress kept a sexual harassment settlement fund and didn't tell you who was paid, who wasaccused or other juicy details?
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by JimC » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:56 am

So yet again, no defence other than 'lots of others dunnit..."
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:13 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:59 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:21 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:44 pm
...
Shifting the burden a bit there eh? Do you think that Cohen's paying off of two women, one for the second time, in the run up to the election was of aid or benefit to the election campaign of his boss, and that this action was tantamount to an illegal campaign contribution? I'm asking because you now seem to be arguing against the conviction on the basis that the monies paid didn't come out of the campaign's coffers.
I think it probably aided the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix, but no, it's not an illegal campaign contribution, since Trump paid Cohen back (reimbursed) and it was an "irrespective" expense that would not be properly paid with campaign funds.

It was a plea deal, by the way.
It seems to me that paying the ladies 'to keep a scandal out of the mix' during a general election campaign hardly counts as an 'irrespective expense' - unless you're using a special meaning of irrespective of course. If Cohen's payments 'probably aided the campaign' then they can be, and indeed have been, declared an improper campaign donation. I'm having trouble imagining a Universe in which those payments were made speculatively, coincidentally, or without regard or reference to the campaign and, again, the issue is not about the ladies being paid with campaign funds. So the issue becomes about whether the president-elect directed his personal attorney to violate campaign law on the understanding that he'd be paid back later. Cohen says that the president-elect directed him to make the payments - and that the Trump Organisation paid him back either 'directly or indirectly' after the fact. That doesn't sound like an 'irrespective expense' either does it? I guess one of the other reason which makes people a bit suspicious about all this is that the President changed his story so many times on this matter - but then again, everybody lies eh?

And yes, Cohen took a plea deal, but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean his conviction is unsound, or he's lying, or that the sequence of events or the evidence have been fabricated - just that he was banged to rights on some charges and took the option of assisting investigators in the hope of mitigating his sentence.
I'd add that it's hard to believe an "irrespective expense" wouldn't have already been paid in the 10 years since the affairs happened. It's not like Trump didn't have the money at any point to pay these women off. I'd argue that the women waiting to sell their stories until Trump was the GOP nominee had everything to do with the election, as did the payoff. Who would otherwise pay for a story of a known adulterer committing more adultery? If he weren't running for President, who would care?

The point that Cohen took a plea deal is silly. He plead guilty to actual campaign violations that are stated clearly in his first plea agreement back in August. The 2 counts each carried a maximum prison sentence of 5 years, and he was looking at a possible 65 years total. From the prosecutor's statements, they had Cohen dead to rights.

As for Trump, it may be significant that he was named only as Individual-1, and not an unindicted co conspirator, but we can't really know until Mueller makes his report.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:32 pm

A look back at the 'made up,' 'invented,' 'phony' so-called Steele dossier.

'The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective'
The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele remains a subject of fascination—or, depending on your perspective, scorn. Indeed, it was much discussed during former FBI Director Jim Comey’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 7. Published almost two years ago by BuzzFeed News in January 2017, the document received significant public attention, first for its lurid details regarding Donald Trump’s pre-presidential alleged sexual escapades in Russia and later for its role in forming part of the basis for the government’s application for a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page.

Our interest in revisiting the compilation that has come to be called the “Steele Dossier” concerns neither of those topics, at least not directly. Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting.

...

In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

But much of the reporting simply remains uncorroborated, at least by the yardstick we are using.
I think that has been corroborated is damning, however.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:46 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:23 pm
Tero wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:36 pm
Here we go
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... reddit.com
The dirt will come out.
Oh, that's hilarious! They want his tax returns? LOL.

Everyone is familiar with the 1040 and Schedules, right? What "dirt" do you think is in there?

Has it ever occurred to you that politicians gave out their tax returns no problem because there really isn't anything anyone can tell from them? I mean, fuck, how naive are people? You'd be able to tell how much gross and adjusted income/taxable income Trump declared, and you'd see a schedule of businesses from which he drew income. But there is no way to audit or examine those returns without the 18,000,000 pages of receipts and bank account statements and general forensic accounting that the IRS has to do when they audit a return.

This is just a political ploy by Pelosi et al - they stuck their fingers in the air and judged that Democrats think Trump should release his tax returns, and get all giddy at the prospect, so they are making a pointless effort to get his tax returns to rally the base.

So, if there isn't much anyone can tell from them, why does Trump not want to release them? Easy - because his INDIVIDUAL tax returns minimize income, so as to pay the least amount of tax, and if folks see them, then they will question whether he is "really" a billionaire, etc. And, they will not know how to read them, or how to verify the numbers, and you'll get article after article by numb-nut and politically partisan journalists writing hit pieces based on half-understandings of the tax system.
You seem to be arguing against yourself here. How can getting Trump's returns out in public be a pointless effort when you've accurately described how they can be used as a political weapon in the run up to the 2020 election?

As for whether we can learn anything useful from Trump's returns, we'll probably have to wait for Mueller's report. As a former US Attorney recently pointed out:
"The first thing that white collar prosecutors do . . . is you get tax returns and you get credit reports," he said, adding "it's easy to do."

"You get tax returns with an order from a federal judge – you get credit reports with a grand jury subpoena – because those are the documents that give you leads," he said.

"They tell you where the money is coming from. They tell you where the money is going, and they tell you who to talk to get more leads. So, does Mueller have Trump's tax returns? You bet."
That seems like a prudent approach, and one that would be as useful for congressional committee investigators as for a special prosecutor.

Perhaps not such a pointless effort or mere political ploy, eh? :prof:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Tero » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:50 pm

Forbes:
We also learned finally what hold Russian President Vladimir Putin has over Trump. It’s not as some suspected, a money laundering episode from more than a decade ago. It was something that happened in real time during the presidential election itself. Thus, Trump himself repeatedly stated since entering the presidential race in June 2015 that he had no business in Russia and no interactions with representatives of Russia. It now turns out that Putin knew what the American people didn’t, namely that Donald Trump was throughout the 2016 presidential primary campaign secretly negotiating to build a huge and lucrative hotel in Moscow, which required the personal support of Vladimir Putin. The fact that Putin knew about Trump’s secret dealings, while the American people didn’t, meant that if Trump didn’t do what Russia wanted, Russia could expose Trump’s lies and so bring him down.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenni ... trump/amp/
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Scot Dutchy » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:13 am

That is some story. It must be curtains for Trump now surely.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Animavore » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:05 am

So what are you going to do about the criminal president?
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Svartalf » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:15 am

Like with every other criminal that reached the post, give him an unstated pardon and forget about the whole matter.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:41 pm

Joe wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:46 pm

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. How can getting Trump's returns out in public be a pointless effort when you've accurately described how they can be used as a political weapon in the run up to the 2020 election`?
As I mentioned, because the weapon used is a misreading of the returns, a misunderstanding of the tax system, and politically partisan unwarranted conclusions drawn from too little information that would be deliberately misconstrued.

As for whether we can learn anything useful from Trump's returns, we'll probably have to wait for Mueller's report. As a former US Attorney recently pointed out:
"The first thing that white collar prosecutors do . . . is you get tax returns and you get credit reports," he said, adding "it's easy to do."
Which has nothing to do with Russia. And, yes, that is what they do.

"You get tax returns with an order from a federal judge – you get credit reports with a grand jury subpoena – because those are the documents that give you leads," he said.

"They tell you where the money is coming from. They tell you where the money is going, and they tell you who to talk to get more leads. So, does Mueller have Trump's tax returns? You bet."
That seems like a prudent approach, and one that would be as useful for congressional committee investigators as for a special prosecutor.

Perhaps not such a pointless effort or mere political ploy, eh? :prof:
Might nail him on a tax issue, for sure. That would be damning.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests